IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 5893 of 2007(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------------- H. RAMAKRISHNAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, RAMANEEYAM, TC.20/2874, SANKARAMADOM LANE, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TECHNO PARK, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R.3 SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R3 ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R1,2,4,5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5893 of 2007(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/3/2002 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/6/2002 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE M. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/06/2002 ISSUED BY PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE RR ACT. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 13/02/2007 TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 13/02/2007 TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 13/02/2007 TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 13/02/2007 TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 24/03/1999 EXECUTED BETWEEN TECHNOPARK AND M/S. INDSOFT INFOTEK SERVICES LTD. EXHIBIT R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 22/05/2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN TECHNOPARTK AND M/S.INDSOFT INFOTEK SERVICES LTD. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 5893 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was one of the Directors of M/s. Indsoft Infotech Service Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. According to him, he resigned from the company on 14.2.2001 after complying with legal formalities. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is against revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of certain amounts due from the company to the 3rd respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is only a former director of the company and for dues of the company, he cannot be proceeded against legally. According to him, even otherwise he having ceased to be a director with effect from 14.2.2001, he cannot be proceeded against at all under any circumstances. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. The 3rd respondent would argue that the 3rd respondent have forced to pay all amounts deposited by the company with the 3rd respondent to the KSIDC on their requisition and therefore the W.P(C) No. 5893 of 2007 -2- 3rd respondent is entitled to recover the lease rent payable by the company to the 3rd respondent from the petitioner, who was a director of the company. I have specifically asked the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader as to how amounts due from the 3rd respondent from the company can be recovered from the petitioner, who was a former director of the company. Neither the counsel for the 3rd respondent nor the learned Government Pleader could point out any law which empowers them to recover dues of a company from its Director. It is settled law that the amounts due from a company incorporated under the Companies Act cannot be recovered from one of its directors in so far as the Director has no personal liability for that amount. Therefore the proceedings now initiated against the petitioner personally are without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the petitioner and his personal properties for recovery of amounts due from the above said company are quashed. However, this will not stand in the way of respondents proceeding against the company and its assets, if any, for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from the company to the 3rd respondent. This writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs