<?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>1997 (11) TMI 533 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194744</link>
    <description>A company that contracts as the electricity consumer remains the separate legal debtor for those dues, and its directors do not become personally liable merely because they executed the agreement in a representative capacity. In the absence of an express statutory provision or clear contractual term extending liability to directors, the company&#039;s assets alone are available for recovery. The definitions of &quot;consumer&quot; in the electricity framework, and references to executors, administrators, legal representatives and successors, did not justify treating directors as the consumer or invoking corporate veil principles. Recovery from directors&#039; personal assets was therefore impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:45:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 533 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194744</link>
      <description>A company that contracts as the electricity consumer remains the separate legal debtor for those dues, and its directors do not become personally liable merely because they executed the agreement in a representative capacity. In the absence of an express statutory provision or clear contractual term extending liability to directors, the company&#039;s assets alone are available for recovery. The definitions of &quot;consumer&quot; in the electricity framework, and references to executors, administrators, legal representatives and successors, did not justify treating directors as the consumer or invoking corporate veil principles. Recovery from directors&#039; personal assets was therefore impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>