Tikam Chand JaIn Vs. State Government of Haryana and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........when the amount became due, it could be recovered from him. both the courts below upheld the defence and declined the ad interim order.2. learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision of law either in the companies act or in the sales tax act which made the director liable personally for the amount due from the company nor has been able to cite any authority.3. learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of d.s. tewatia j. in civil writ no. 2010 of 1976 (kundan singh v. moga transport co. p. ltd.) decided on aprils, 1983, [1987] 62 comp cas 600 (p & h), wherein it was held that neither in the company law nor in the industrial disputes act is there any provision making the managing director personally liable for recovery of the dues against the limited company. it is, therefore, apparent that both the courts below because of misconception of law acted illegally in exercise of their jurisdiction in declining the prayer for issue of ad interim injunction. this petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order reversed. no costs.