The Court dismissed a summons for judgement against a company director, holding that based on the plaintiff's submission, the director signed documents only in his capacity as a representative of the company and was not personally liable.
Summons for judgement is dismissed against defendant no.2 as he is not personally liable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO. 100 OF 2003
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 6775 OF 1999
The Paper Products Ltd. .. Plaintiffs
versus
Urisan Cosmetics Ltd. & Anr. .. Defendants
Mr.K.R. Belosay for the plaintiff.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.
DATED : 1st March 2005.
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the
suit against defendant has already been decreed for
non compliance of the order dated 23rd April 2002
passed in Summons for Judgement no.129 of 2000. This
Summons for Judgement is taken out against defendant
no.2.
2. The defendant no.1 is a Company incorporated
and registered under the Companies Act 1956 and the
defendant no.2 is its Director. By a memorandum of
understanding dated 31st March 1999, the defendant
no.1 agreed that it is liable to pay to the plaintiff
the suit amount and issued 12 cheques mentioned in
the said memorandum. The memorandum is signed by
defendant no.2 in the capacity as the director and
authorised signatory of the defendant no.1. The
cheques have also been signed by defendant no.2 in
the capacity as director and authorised signatory of
the defendant no.1. The perusal of the plaint as
well as the documents annexed to the plaint does not
show that the defendant no.2 is personally liable.
The liability was of defendant no.1 and defendant
no.2 had signed the memorandum and cheques only in
capacity as a director. He is not shown to be
personally liable. Hence, Summons for Judgement is
dismissed against defendant no.2.
D.G. KARNIK, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a director who signs a memorandum of understanding and cheques in a representative capacity is personally liable in a summary suit.
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court