IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 226 OF 2009 M/S. RASHMI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. PANDURANG NIVRUTTI PATIL SADOLIKPAR ALIAS P. N. PATIL ... Respondent Shri Agnelo F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 8th June, 2010 P.C.:- Heard Shri A. F. Diniz, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. The Respondent/Decree Holder has been duly served but has chosen to remain absent. This petition has been filed by the Company/Judgment Debtor and is directed against Order dated 5-3-2009 by which a warrant of arrest has been issued against the Managing Director of the Petitioner for his detention in civil prison, for failure to pay the amount due on the decree. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner-Company had only two Directors and had no Managing Director. Learned Counsel further submits that the present petition has been filed pursuant to power of attorney given by the said two Directors. There is no dispute that the Respondent had obtained a Decree against the Petitioner-Company which is now a judgment-debtor in the execution proceedings. The said decree was a money decree for the recovery of a sum of Rs.7,62,551.50 with further interest and expenses against the said Company. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the Company itself had no Managing Director and moreover upon the failure of the Company to satisfy the decree its Managing Director, if any, could not have been arrested and/or detained in civil prison on failure to satisfy the decree. Learned Counsel has made reference to various provisions of the Code and has placed reliance on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kundan Singh v. Moga Transport Co.(P) Ltd. and others(1987 Company Cases 600). As already stated, there is no dispute that the Respondent as decree holder had obtained the decree for the recovery of money against the Company which was a Judgment Debtor. Section 2(10) defines the expression "judgment- debtor" to mean any person against whom a decree has been passed or the order capable of execution has been made. Section 55 deals with arrest and detention, and, inter alia provides that a judgment-debtor may be arrested in an execution of a decree. Order 21, Rule 30 provides that when the decree is for payment of money, including a decree for payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or by the attachment or sale of his property or by both. Order 21, Rule 41 provides for examination of the judgment-debtor as to his property. Sub Rule (1) thereof provides that where a decree is for the payment of money the decree holder may apply to the Court for an order that - a) the judgment-debtor or, b) where the judgment-debtor is a Corporation, any Officer thereof, or c) any other person, may be orally examined as to whether any or what debts are owing to the judgment-debtor and whether the judgment-debtor has any and what other property or means of satisfying the decree; and the Court may make an order for the attendance and examination of such judgment-debtor, or officer or other person, for the production of any books or documents. In Kundan Singh v. Moga Transport Co.(P) Ltd. and others(supra) a Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there is no provision either in the Companies Act, 1956, or in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which makes a Managing Director of a Company personally liable for recovery of dues against the Company. As already stated, the decree holder had obtained the money decree in this case against a Company which is a separate entity. On failure to satisfy the said decree, the decree holder ought to have resorted to the other remedies available to him. Arrest and detention of the Managing Director of the said Company, even if there was one, was certainly not one of the remedies which was available to the Respondent/Decree Holder since the decree was against the Company, which is a separate entity. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is bound to succeed. The impugned Order is hereby set aside, with no order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.