SHASHIKANTH GOVINDALAL MANDANNA Vs. YKK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is not a party eo nominee to the ex-parte money decree dated 19.12.2013 entered in respondent's suit in O.S.No.1332/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court laying a challenge to the order dated 28.03.2017 made by the learned XX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 32), a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby his application in I.A.No.2 filed under Order 21 Rule 37 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 for recalling the execution process by the mode of arrest & detention. The 1st Respondent having entered appearance through his counsel resists the writ petition, the notice to 2nd Respondent having been dispensed with.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has obtained the money decree against the 2nd respondent-Company; though the petitioner was the Director of the judgment-debtor company, the decree against the company cannot be executed against its Directors since it is a cardinal principle of Company Law that a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 being an independent legal person is different from its Directors; so arguing he seeks allowing of the writ petition by invalidating the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting respondents per contra submits that this aspect of the matter having been duly considered by the Executing Court at para 10 of the impugned order, there is no error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this Court; a decree passed against a Company should not be resisted by its Director on the ground that he is not a party thereto and an argument to the contrary would render such a decree only a 'paper decree' and therefore should not be countenanced. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.