Facts
GESCOM obtained a judgment and decree dated 21 August 2006 in O.S. No. 485/2002 against M/s Chittapur Cement Private Limited for electricity dues.
Source reference: p. 3–6In 2012, it initiated execution against the company; the execution petition was later amended to include the company’s directors as judgment debtors.
Source reference: p. 3–6The petitioners, described as legal representatives of directors, objected that the decree against the company could not be enforced against them personally.
Source reference: p. 3–6On 12 February 2020, the executing court rejected their objections and directed GESCOM to file a fresh calculation of the amount due.
Source reference: p. 3–6The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 3–6Issues
1. Whether a decree against a company for electricity dues may be executed against its directors, or their legal representatives, where the decree does not impose personal liability on them
Source reference: p. 4–82. Whether the executing court’s order rejecting the petitioners’ objections warranted interference under Article 227
Source reference: p. 5–6, 8–9Law Applied
An executing court must execute the decree as made and cannot go beyond it or enlarge liability to bind persons who were not parties to the decree and are not otherwise legally liable.
Source reference: p. 7–8The Court relied on Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) v. M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2026 SC 610, including its reiteration of the rule in Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan that an executing court may construe a decree but cannot go beyond it
Source reference: p. 7–8A company is a separate juristic person; its directors are not personally liable for its debts merely by reason of their office, absent personal liability or another legal basis for holding them accountable
Source reference: p. 8–9Reasoning
The decree in O.S. No. 485/2002 was against the company alone, and the electricity supply and consumption were also attributable to the company.
Source reference: p. 8–9The Court noted that the decree did not impose personal liability on the directors and that there was no case that they were individually liable for the dues
Source reference: p. 8–9Applying the rule that execution cannot enlarge a decree, the Court held that the company’s debt could not be recovered from the directors or the petitioners as their legal representatives merely because they were associated with the directors.
Source reference: p. 6, 8–10The assertion that the relevant properties had been derived from company funds did not alter the decree’s scope; GESCOM remained free to proceed against property belonging to the company
Source reference: p. 6, 8–10Holding
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order insofar as it permitted execution against the petitioners.
It clarified that GESCOM could continue execution against the company’s property, if any, in accordance with law
Source reference: p. 9–10Original Court PDF
RAJENDRA S/O SHANKAR RAO HANCHATEAND ANRvsKARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
