High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
M/s Clutch Auto Limited & Anr. v. Sita Ram Garg - CR-6382-2005  RD-P&H 9742 (2 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6382 of 2005
Date of Decision: 3.11.2006
M/s Clutch Auto Limited & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.
Sita Ram Garg ...Respondent
CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.K.B.Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondent.
Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral)
Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad rejecting the application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) moved by the petitioner.
The learned court below has rejected the said application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code by holding that there was allegations against him by defendant No.2 and therefore, he was necessary party and his name could not be deleted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the CR No.6382 of 2005 2
judgment of this Court in Tikam Chand Jain Vs. State Government of Haryana through its Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Haryana, Chandigarh and another (1987-2) P.L.R. 151 contended that there are no provisions making the Managing Director personally liable for recovery of the dues against the Limited Company and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 could not have been impleaded as a party.
He also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. R.M.Marketing and Services Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2002 Delhi 344 to contend that when the Directors have not given any personal guarantee for due payment of loan and the company being a registered company is a separate legal entity and therefore, Directors cannot be fastened with liability to pay the same.
I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and find no force in the same. In the present case, defendant No.2 has been impleaded as a party on account of the allegations having been levelled against him and therefore, it is not a case where the liability of the company can be fastened on defendant No.2. The petitioners, therefore, cannot draw any advantage from the judgment referred to above. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was right in dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.
However, the findings of the learned Trial Court that no court fee was liable to be paid cannot be sustained as admittedly in the present case the respondent-plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.2.26,000/- i.e.
Rs.1.26,000/- as balance and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages accordingly, he was liable to pay court fee on the said amount. The said part of the impugned CR No.6382 of 2005 3
order cannot be sustained.
The revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent-plaintiff shall pay the court fee on the amount claimed within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.