( 1 ) DEFENDANTS No. 1 and 3 are ex-parte. Qua them evidence has been led. Defendant No. 2 has filed a written statement. ( 2 ) ISSUES on pleadings of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 have to be framed. ( 3 ) NEEDLESS to state, issues of law or facts which require adjudication and on which parties are at variance require to be reflected in the issues framed. ( 4 ) QUESTION arises whether any triable issue arises inter se defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff on the pleadings of the parties. ( 5 ) CASE of the plaintiff is that it is a partnership firm and was having business dealings with defendant No. l which is a company. It is stated that defendants No. 2 and 3 are the directors of defendant No. 1 and are therefore jointly and severally liable for all dues of defendant No. l. ( 6 ) I am afraid, said assertion in the plaint is contrary to law. A company is a juristic entity. Neither its directors nor its shareholders are personally liable for the debts of the company. ( 7 ) DIRECTORS of the company may be liable, if they have stood as guarantors. e. have furnished personal guarantees. ( 8 ) IF alleged and established that the directors are guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance, recovery can be effected from the directors, to be put in the common pool of the funds of the company and the amounts may then be made available to the creditors of the company. ( 9 ) THERE are no averments in the plaint that defendant No. 2 committed acts of malfeasance and misfeasance. It has not been pleaded that defendant No. 2 stood personal guarantee. ( 10 ) NOTWITHSTANDING that defendant No. 2 has taken a stand that he was never a director of defendant No. l, ignoring the defence, no issue arises for consideration for the reason assuming defendant No. 2 to be a director of defendant No. l, would not make him jointly or severally liable for the debts of defendant no. 1. ( 11 ) I repeat, it is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 furnished a guarantee for repayment of due to plaintiff. No case of malfeasance or misfeasance is alleged against defendant No. 2. ( 12 ) SUIT against defendant No. 2 is accordingly dismissed. 1. ( 11 ) I repeat, it is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 furnished a guarantee for repayment of due to plaintiff. No case of malfeasance or misfeasance is alleged against defendant No. 2. ( 12 ) SUIT against defendant No. 2 is accordingly dismissed. ( 13 ) ORDER dated 7. 1. 2004 directed that exparte evidence be led by way of affidavit against defendant No. 1 and 3. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit by way of evidence. I proceed to consider the same. ( 14 ) CASE of the plaintiff is that it had business dealings with defendant No. l and that vide invoices dated 3. 12. 1999 and 26. 12. 1999 it had made supplies to defendant No. l. Amounts covered by the said invoices were not paid. Thereafter, on 21. 2. 2000 an agreement was entered into as per which defendant No. 1 was appointed as the stockist of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the said agreement deliveries were effected vide invoice dated 20. 3. 2000 and 6. 4. 2000. That as per the agreement dated 21. 2. 2000 a minimum profit of 20% was to be given by defendant No. l for the goods supplied by the plaintiff for sale by defendant No. l. Suit seeks recovery of the value of the goods as per the 4 invoices as also the minimum 20% profit on the value of the supplies under the latter 2 invoices. ( 15 ) PLAINTIFF has made reference to various cheques issued by defendant No. l which were dishonoured. ( 16 ) THE first 2 invoices have been proved by the plaintiff through PW-1, Shri Harjeet Singh sohi, partner of the plaintiff as Ex. PWl/4 and pw1/5. The latter 2 invoices have been proved as Ex. PW1/12 and PW1/13. The agreement dated 21. 2. 2000 has been proved as Ex. PW1/11. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to show any term in Ex. PWl/11 entitling plaintiff to a minimum profit of 20%. Therefore, claim in the suit for 20% minimum profit is rejected. However, in view of Ex. PWl/ 4, Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PWl/12 and Ex. PW1/13 claim under the invoices has to be decreed. The amount comes to Rs. 18,49,606. 37. ( 18 ) INVOICES do not stipulate any agreed rate of interest. No evidence of market usage has been led. Therefore, claim in the suit for 20% minimum profit is rejected. However, in view of Ex. PWl/ 4, Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PWl/12 and Ex. PW1/13 claim under the invoices has to be decreed. The amount comes to Rs. 18,49,606. 37. ( 18 ) INVOICES do not stipulate any agreed rate of interest. No evidence of market usage has been led. Thus, claim for interest would have to be, as per the Interest Act 1978 w. e. f. the date when interest was claimed. Vide Ex. PW1/ 15, dated 2. 9. 2002 notice was served upon defendant No. 1 that if outstanding payments were not cleared plaintiff claims interest @18% per annum. But, plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate offered by scheduled banks on fixed deposits. No evidence has been led as to what rate of interest was offered by scheduled banks on fixed deposits. I take the interest to be 8% per annum. ( 19 ) DECREE in sum of Rs. 18,49,606. 37 as the principal sum due is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 1. Plaintiff would also be entitled to interest on the said sum @8% per annum from 2. 9. 2002 till date of suit. Pendente lite and post decretal interest @8% per annum is awarded to the plaintiff against defendant No. 1. ( 20 ) THERE being no evidence that defendant no. 3 gave a personal guarantee to secure repayment, on the reasoning noted above qua defendant No. 2, suit against defendant no. 3 is dismissed. ( 21 ) PLAINTIFF would be entitled to costs against defendant No. 1.