Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the erstwhile directors of a company could be held personally liable for repayment of amounts invested in debentures in the absence of any personal guarantee, indemnity or contractual undertaking, and whether the plea of fraud justified fastening such liability on them.
Analysis: A company is a separate juristic person and its obligations do not automatically become the personal obligations of its directors. Personal liability of directors arises only where they have expressly undertaken such liability by guarantee, indemnity or similar contractual assumption, or where fraudulent misrepresentation is specifically pleaded and proved so as to justify piercing the corporate veil. In a summary suit, bald allegations are insufficient, and fraud must be pleaded with particulars as required by the procedural rules. On the pleadings, there was no assertion that the appellants had guaranteed the debt, agreed to pay on behalf of the company, or otherwise assumed joint and several liability. The material also did not disclose the specific particulars necessary to sustain a finding of fraud against them.
Conclusion: The appellants could not be made personally liable for the company's debt; the decree against them was unsustainable and they were entitled to unconditional leave to defend.