IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.720 of 2008 THE M.D.,PATNA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Versus M/S SSL STEELS LTD.& ANR ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Naresh Dikshit For the respondents no.2 : Mr. G.K. Agrawal, GP – 1 --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 12th September, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of 176 days and for condonation thereof, an application (IA. No.5566 of 2008) has been made. 2. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 3. The single judge in the impugned order considered the matter thus: “From the facts noted above, it would be seen that in view of the statements made in the counter affidavit petitioner – company’s money is appropriated and deposited against the dues of one M/S Rama Wood and General Industries Private Limited, an another company. When confronted as to how and what is the basis of statements in the counter affidavits that the petitioner – company owned M/s Rama Wood Private Limited, the only answer that could be given is that two companies had one Director in common. The stand of the Industrial Area Development Authority amazes this Court and probably the authority does not know the concept of corporate law. The House of Lords century back in the case of Salomon v. Salomon, reported in 1897 Appeal Cases 22 laid down that there is distinction between the Director and a Company and a Company is corporate 2 identity independent of its share holders. Dues of one company cannot be adjusted against another company without consent of the two. No case has been made out that either of the two companies are subsidiary of each other. A person may be a Director in 20 companies (as permissible by the Company Law) but that does not mean that he is the owner of each of those 20 companies. In that view of the matter, the order of the Industrial Area Development Authority passed, during the pendency of the writ petition, is illegal and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority is directed to refund the full amount along with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the day refund was due i.e. from the day it was deposited and possession could not be delivered to the petitioner. It is further directed that refund must be made within a period of one month from the time when the order of this court is presented before the respondent no.3, Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna.” 4. We find no justification to take a view different from the single judge. The impugned order is imminently just and proper. 5. Letters patent appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. This disposes of the application for condonation of delay (IA. No.5566 of 2008) as well. 6. Since letters patent appeal has been dismissed, the prayer for interim relief does not survive. 7. Consequently, IA. No.5565 of 2008 for interim relief also stands rejected. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/ 3