1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3737 OF 2010 Namrata Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Deepak Ramesh Mehta & ors. .. Respondents Mrs. A.R.S. Baxi i/b Mr. Sandeep Jinsiwale for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3. None for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the notice dated 10th March 2010 issued by the Tahsildar, Thane for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,85,331/- in pursuance of an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Maharashtra State (for short “the State Commission”). 3. The petitioners are builders and promoters. The petitioner no.1 is a private limited company and the petitioner no.2 owns practically whole of the share capital of the company and is a director of the petitioner no.1. 2 4. By an agreement dated 10th March 2004, the petitioners agreed to construct and sell to the respondent no.1 one flat. On account of a dispute arising out of alleged non-delivery of flat despite full payment of the price, the respondent no.1 approached the State Commission. By an order dated 11th November 2008, the State Commission allowed the application and directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent no.1 the amount of Rs.11,50,000/- together with interest at 10% per annum. The petitioners did not challenge the said order before the National Commission and the order has become final. As the amount was not paid paid, the matter was sent by the State Commission for recovery to the Collector who through the Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.2 cannot be made personally liable as he is only a director of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 was personally joined as a party to the complaint before the State Commission and the order has been passed against both the petitioners. As stated earlier, that order has become final. The Collector cannot go behind the order and has to execute 3 the order as it is. Consequently, he committed no error in issuing notices to both the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners then pointed out that in the title of the complaint before the State Commission, the petitioner no.2 has been described as a “director, Namrata Realtors Pvt. Ltd.”. In my view, they are words of description and do not denote the capacity in which he was sued. This grievance therefore does not survive. 7. In the circumstances, I see no error in the issuance of the notice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)