Certificate proceedings and attachment orders initiated or continued against a dead person are void ab initio.

The petitioners are the legal heirs (wife and son) of late Pradeep Agrawal, the former Managing Director of Simran Metals Ltd.

A certificate proceeding (Case No. 10/2013-14/181/2001-02) was initiated in 2001-02 for recovery of dues against the company and Pradeep Agrawal.

Pradeep Agrawal died in May 2021.

On December 28, 2024, the petitioners were served with a warrant of attachment dated July 17, 2019, issued against the deceased and the company.

The petitioners challenged the recovery proceedings on the grounds that the warrant was issued against a dead person and that personal assets of legal heirs cannot be attached for corporate debts.

1. Whether certificate proceedings and warrants issued/continued against a deceased person are legally valid and enforceable.

2. Whether the personal assets of the legal heirs of a Managing Director can be attached for the realization of dues owed by an incorporated company.

Section 52 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (PDR Act), which governs procedures upon the death of a certificate-debtor.

Smt. Gita Devi v. State of Bihar (2000) 1 PLJR 591, which establishes that a certificate signed against a dead person is void ab initio.

The principle from Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Bihar (2002) 2 PLJR 553 and Amar Prasad Sahu v. State of Bihar (2004) 2 PLJR 515, holding that the liability of an incorporated company cannot be enforced against the personal assets or persons of its directors unless specifically provided by statute.

The court reasoned that since Pradeep Agrawal died in 2021, the continuation of proceedings and the execution of a warrant against him in 2024 was "non-est in the eye of law and without jurisdiction".

Under Section 52 of the PDR Act and relevant Board of Revenue instructions, if a debtor dies before the certificate is signed, it is void; if they die after, the legal heirs must be formally substituted and served with fresh notice, which was not done here.

The court found that the respondents sought to recover company dues from the personal property of the heirs, which violates the doctrine of corporate personality.

The court also noted the claim appeared to be barred by limitation due to the significant delay in initiating recovery processes.

The Writ Petition was allowed, and Certificate Case No. 10/2013-14/181/2001-02 was quashed as against the petitioners and the deceased; however, authorities remain free to proceed against the assets of Simran Metals Ltd.