Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 514 (PNJ)

Anil Singhal v. Tek Ram

2003-04-08

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
ORDER M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is directed against the order dated 15.2.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for brevity the Tribunal) dismissing the objections of the JD-petitioners while opposing the execution of the award passed by the Tribunal in petition No. 47 of 28.3.1997 decided on 26.11.1999 (Annexure P-1) awarding a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs as compensation to the Decree- holder-respondents. Krishan Bairagi being the driver and M/s Purar Testiles Limited, being the owner of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay one half of the compensation amount, whereas Insurance Company and two others were held jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining one half of the compensation to the decree-holder-respondents with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till its actual realisation. The Tribunal has dismissed the objections of the JD-petitioners by recording the following order :- "7. From the perusal of Superdginama dated 3.1.1997, it is clear that the vehicle in question was taken on Superdari by Anil Kumar as being Director of Purar Ltd. It shows that they were having every right and interest with this company. Had it not been so, there was no necessity to obtain the vehicle on Superdari by him. 8. From the perusal of mutation No. 4922, it is clear that Purar Ltd. purchased land measuring 8 Kanals 16 Marlas through objector Rajinder, as being its Managing Director. So, it is clear that the objectors are having right and interest in the property owned by it. As they were having right and interest in the company in question, they are liable to pay the amount of compensation. 9. As per Section 426 of the Companies Act, the liabilities of present and past members are to be determined when a company has wind up. But, in the case in hand, the situation is altogether otherwise. 10. More so, if the company has been sold by the objectors to some other persons, it does not mean that they are not liable to pay the compensation. The agreement is unregistered and can be created at any time. 11. Further, the accident took place an 27.11.1996 whereas this agreement was prepared on 10.4.1997. 10. More so, if the company has been sold by the objectors to some other persons, it does not mean that they are not liable to pay the compensation. The agreement is unregistered and can be created at any time. 11. Further, the accident took place an 27.11.1996 whereas this agreement was prepared on 10.4.1997. It appears that to avoid the liability, this agreement was prepared by the parties. It seems to be a device to defeat the orders of the court. So, these arguments are of no avail." 2. Mr. Sushil Jain, learned counsel for the Objector-petitioners has argued that once by an agreement dated 10.4.1997, the company has been sold, the objector-petitioners cannot be held individually liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the DH-respondents. According to the learned counsel, the Company is retaining its corporate character and the ownership of the offending vehicle namely TATA 407 Canter bearing registration No. HR 11 2182 was owned by M/s Purar Testiles Pvt.Ltd., and, therefore, the Company has to bear the liability of satisfying the award dated 26.11.1999. The learned counsel has further pointed out that after the objector-petitioners have ceased to be Directors of the Company, no liability can be fastened on them as all liabilities in accordance with the agreement dated 10.4.1997 (Annexure P- 2) have to be borne by the Company and its new Directors namely Vinod Kumar Bhatia, Parveen Dutt Sharma and Parveen Madan. He has referred to Clause III of the agreement stipulating that all past and future assets and liabilities of the Company have been purchased by the afore-mentioned new Directors. 3. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, I do not feel persuaded to take a view different that the one taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that the accident has taken place on 27.11.1996 and the agreement dated 10.4.1997 has been prepared much later. The award was announced on 26.11.1999. It has further been found that the offending vehicle owned by M/s Purar Testiles Pvt. Ltd. was taken on Supardari by one of the objector-petitioners Anil Kumar, who was then Director. It has further been found that land measuring 8 K 16 M was purchased through another objector Rajinder in his capacity as Managing Director. The agreement dated 10.4.1997 is unregistered document and is a device to defeat the rights of the decree- holder-respondents. It has further been found that land measuring 8 K 16 M was purchased through another objector Rajinder in his capacity as Managing Director. The agreement dated 10.4.1997 is unregistered document and is a device to defeat the rights of the decree- holder-respondents. Moreover, the JD-respondents are not party to the agreement dated 10.4.1997. If there is any stipulation between the objector- petitioners and the new Directors of the Company, then the objector- petitioners have to receive the awarded amount from them. The liability cannot be avoided by them by hiding behind the corporate character of the Company because such like agreements can be easily prepared to defeat the rights of the JD-respondents. The objector-petitioners have failed to establish their bonafides. Therefore, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the tribunal. The instant petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.