High Court grants petition under Article 227, directors removed from suit. Directorial liability clarified.

The High Court allowed the petition under Article 227, overturning the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the defendant directors' application to remove their names from the suit. The Court emphasized that the fraud allegations against the directors did not establish personal liability, maintaining the separate legal identity of the company. Relying on legal precedents, the High Court clarified the limited scope of directorial liability in civil suits and the restricted application of the corporate veil doctrine, ultimately deleting the defendant directors from the suit's array of parties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under Article 227 against order dismissing deletion of defendant names.
2. Suit for recovery of outstanding sum against company and directors.
3. Allegations of fraud and cheating against directors.
4. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion of directors from parties.
5. Interpretation of liability of directors in civil suit.

Analysis:
1. The petition under Article 227 challenged the Trial Court's order dismissing the application of defendant directors to delete their names from the suit's array of parties. The suit was for the recovery of a sum against a company and its directors, alleging non-payment for supplied material and dishonored cheques.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, including the directors, were liable for payments. The defendants, in turn, sought deletion from the suit, claiming no personal liability as directors of the company. The Trial Court dismissed the application based on fraud and cheating allegations against the directors.

3. The Trial Court's reasoning relied on the principle of lifting the corporate veil due to specific averments of fraud against the directors. However, the High Court found the order unsustainable as the allegations in the plaint did not indicate personal transactions with the directors, emphasizing the separate legal entity of the company.

4. The High Court highlighted that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil is not applicable in every case of liability against a company. It explained that this doctrine is limited to specific circumstances, such as fraud or statutory requirements, and cannot be invoked merely based on commercial transactions involving a company.

5. Citing legal precedents, including the judgment in Mukesh Hans, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and deleted the defendant directors from the array of parties in the suit. It clarified the limited scope of directorial liability in civil suits and distinguished cases concerning criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal principles governing the liability of company directors in civil suits and the application of the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil in specific circumstances.

---