<?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>1990 (9) TMI 370 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472422</link>
    <description>Corporate decretal liability remains distinct from the personal liability of a managing director. A decree against a company cannot be enforced against its managing director merely because of that office. Arrest and detention in execution require an affirmative finding that the managing director is personally liable for the decretal debt; without such a finding, coercive execution against the individual is impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 16:28:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=929374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 370 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472422</link>
      <description>Corporate decretal liability remains distinct from the personal liability of a managing director. A decree against a company cannot be enforced against its managing director merely because of that office. Arrest and detention in execution require an affirmative finding that the managing director is personally liable for the decretal debt; without such a finding, coercive execution against the individual is impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>