1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1133 of 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.519 OF 2006 IN REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO.488 OF 2000 Subinoy Ranjan Guha ..Plaintiff. Vs. MIDCO Marketing & Investment Ltd. ..Defendant. And MIDCO Limited ..Applicant. .... Mr. Parineet Saratkar for the Plaintiff. Mr. Ravindra Parekh & Co. for the Applicant. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 23rd June, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Chamber Summons has been taken out for raising an attachment that was levied on 7th June, 2007 on the property belonging to the Applicant. The Applicant carries on the business of manufacturing petrol dispensing units and pumps. The Applicant which is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 was formally known as Mercantile and Industrial Development Company Limited. The company is presently known as MIDCO Limited. A 2 certificate of incorporation that has been issued by the registrar of companies on 12th August, 2005 is annexed at Exhibit A to the affidavit in support. 2. The decree holder was employed by the Applicant as a sales officer in its Consumer Products Division on 4th September, 1991. The case of the Applicant is that in 1992 it closed down its Consumer Products Division and accordingly the services of the decree holder came to be dispensed with. The Defendant which was a company by the name of MIDCO Marketing and Investment Private Limited appointed the decree holder on 2nd November, 1992 as a sales officer. With effect from 4th January, 1994 the Defendant promoted the Applicant as an Area Sales Manager. The services of the decree holder were terminated with effect from 17th August, 1999. The termination of his services was challenged by the decree holder by instituting a suit before the Civil Court at Nagpur. The suit came to be decreed and thereupon the decree was transferred to Mumbai for execution. Two warrants of attachment came to be levied against the Defendant in respect of the movable and immovable 3 properties respectively. The warrants came to be amended and were directed eventually to the place of business of the Applicant. The attachment was accordingly levied on the property of the Applicant. The Chamber Summons has been taken out for lifting of the attachment. 3. The contention of the Applicant is that though the original Plaintiff was in its service since 1991, his services came to be dispensed with in 1992. The Plaintiff – decree holder thereupon joined the services of the Defendant and remained in service until he came to be terminated. The suit was instituted against the Defendant which has since gone into liquidation. In the circumstances, it has been submitted that the Applicant is neither the judgment debtor nor was there any privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Applicant. On the other hand it has been submitted on behalf of the decree holder that the registered office of the Applicant is in the same building as the registered office of the Defendant; the General Manager (HRD) of the Applicant came to be appointed to the same position in the Defendant and that essentially the Applicant and the Defendant are one and the same company. It has also 4 been stated that the monogram of both the companies is the same and that in 1993 a salary slip came to be issued by the Applicant to the decree holder. 4. The fact that the decree holder was in the service of the Applicant with effect from 4th September, 1991 is not disputed nor is the fact that the services of the decree holder came to be dispensed with in 1992 upon which he ceased to be in the services of the Applicant. These two averments which have been made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support have not been denied in paragraph 9 of the reply which has been filed in these proceedings. It is not disputed that the decree holder had joined the services of a company by the name of MIDCO Marketing and Investment Private Limited viz. the original Defendant. The Applicant was not a party to the suit. The decree that was passed was against the Defendant and not against the Applicant. The attachment that has been levied against the properties of the Applicant is therefore manifestly misconceived. The fact that the place where the registered office of the Defendant and of the Applicant is situated is the same cannot 5 advance the case of the decree holder The Applicant is a body corporate to whom a certificate of incorporation has been issued by the registrar of companies and it has a distinct corporate personality. The decree holder has not made out any case either in the pleadings or in the submissions before the Court for lifting of the corporate veil for it is well settled that such an exercise can be carried out only in certain specified eventualities. Though it was sought to be asserted that the Applicant had issued a salary slip to the decree holder in the month of March 1993 after the date of termination, it is significant that the decree holder chose not to implead the Applicant as a Defendant to the suit. As a matter of fact the decree holder has in his reply to these proceedings relied on a letter dated 4th January, 1994 promoting him as an Area Sales Manager. That letter admittedly was not issued by the Applicant but by the original Defendant. In these circumstances, the whole basis on which attachment has been sought to be levied against the property of the Applicant is misconceived. The Chamber Summons would have to be made absolute and is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). *****