TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rts, New Delhi] in exercise of powers under Order XXI Rule 41 of CPC, directing the petitioners viz. Anirban Roy and Romira Roy being the Directors of the respondent no.2 / judgment-debtor Seed Infrastructure & Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to disclose their personal movable and immovable assets in terms of judgment dated 11th January, 2016 of this Court in Execution Petition No.275/2012 titled Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharia Raj Joint Ventures & Ors. and on failure of the petitioners to do so, issuing bailable warrants in the name of the two petitioners. 2. The petition was entertained and vide ad-interim order dated 19th May, 2017, the direction for issuance of bailable warrants was ordered to be kept in abeyance. 3. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd company, against its directors; (ii) that though Order XXI Rule 50 of the CPC does provide for execution of a money decree against a firm, from the assets of the partners of the said firm mentioned in the said Rule but there is no provision with respect to directors of a company; (iii) that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and can execute the same as per its form only; (iv) that if the decree is against the company, the executing Court cannot execute the decree against anyone other than the judgment-debtor company or against the assets and properties of anyone other than the judgment-debtor company; (v) that the identity of a director or a shareholder of a company is distinct from that of the company-that is the ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion that whenever the decree is against a company, its Directors/shareholders would also be liable-to hold so would be contrary to the very concept of limited liability and obliterate the distinction between a partnership and a company; (x) that though the Courts have watered down the principle in Solomon supra to cover the cases of a fraud, improper conduct, etc. as laid down in Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Chadha (2004) SCC 1 but a case therefor has to be made out; (xi) that the decree holders in that case had not made out any case therefor; the directors were not parties to the proceedings in which decree was passed and were not impleaded in the execution petition also and there were no averments in the execution petition of fraud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the directors have siphoned off the assets without any particulars, cannot be accepted as the ground for improper conduct. 13. Reference may also be made to Asian Granite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal Aggarwal 2016 SCC OnLine Del 69 setting aside the sale of the property of a company in execution of a decree against the directors of the company. 14. As far as reference to Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. supra is concerned, a perusal thereof does not show this Court to have held that in every case of execution of a money decree against a company, the Directors of the judgment debtor company are required to furnish details of their personal properties. The direction to the Directors, in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. supra, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stating the particulars of the assets of the judgment debtor. (3) In case of disobedience of any order made under sub-rule (2), the court making the order, or any court to which the proceeding is transferred, may direct that the person disobeying the order be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three month unless before the expiry of such term the court directs his release.)" 17. The direction impugned is evidently under sub-Rule (2) of Order XXI Rule 41. However what the said rule permits is a direction for disclosure of the particulars of the assets of the judgment-debtor and not assets of any other person. Though Order XXI Rule 41(1) also permits the Court to examine "any other person" but the words "any oth....