<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (11) TMI 245 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103160</link>
    <description>Arrest and detention in execution of a money decree is permissible only if the decree-holder proves the specific statutory grounds after the judgment-debtor is given an opportunity to show cause; mere allegations of resistance to attachment are insufficient. The court also clarified that a managing director cannot be committed to civil prison in a personal capacity for a company&#039;s decree debt unless personal liability and the requisite statutory conditions, including means and wilful refusal to pay, are established. On the stated facts, the required grounds were not proved, so personal detention could not be sustained and the execution request failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:37:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 245 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103160</link>
      <description>Arrest and detention in execution of a money decree is permissible only if the decree-holder proves the specific statutory grounds after the judgment-debtor is given an opportunity to show cause; mere allegations of resistance to attachment are insufficient. The court also clarified that a managing director cannot be committed to civil prison in a personal capacity for a company&#039;s decree debt unless personal liability and the requisite statutory conditions, including means and wilful refusal to pay, are established. On the stated facts, the required grounds were not proved, so personal detention could not be sustained and the execution request failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>