Tribunals and Commissions(2003) 05 NCDRC CK 0040

SUNDER SINGH RANA vs Govind Ram

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 20 May 2003 · Citation: 2003 3 CPJ 352 : 2003 3 CPR 478 : 2004 1 CPC 348

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.D.Shahi , Surendra Kumar , Luxmi Singh J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 322 words
1.

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2002 directing the appellant to pay the amount mentioned in the order personally as well as severally.

2.

THERE was one Himadri Group of Companies. Sunder Singh was its Managing Director, Satendra Singh Negi was its Director, Rajendra Singh Chauhan was its Branch Manager. The complainant had made certain deposits. The company ran away along with the money. The complainant Govind Singh Rana filed the complaint. It is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. We can only be sorry on the fate of these poor consumers who have deposited the money with these appellants. There is no personal liability in a case of Limited Company of the employees, directors and managing directors. The liability is that of only the Company. It is true that the Company is liable, not its employees. The amount can be recovered from the assets of the Company. It is also pleaded and proved that Sunder Singh Rana had already resigned before the liquidiation of the Company and on its place new Managing Director has been appointed. By that way also the present appellant is not liable because he has been relieved of his liabilities.

The fact remains, therefore, that no order could have been passed against the appellant in his personal capacity and the order is to be modified to that extent. However, the complainant is free to search his money from the assets of the Company. Wheresoever it may be including in the hands of the appellant. ORDER

3.

THE appeal is allowed. THE order of the learned Forum is modified to that extent that there is no order of recovery against the appellant in his personal capacity. However, the complainant is free to search his money from the assets of the company wheresoever it may be including in the hands of the appellant. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.