RAJENDRA SACHDEVA Vs. A.C. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal brought under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant assails judgment and decree dtd. 22/5/2023, whereby the money recovery suit filed by the appellant was partly decreed for the suit amount against only the present respondent no. 1 company and was dismissed against the remaining respondents, who are Directors of respondent no.1. Notice sent to respondent no.1 company returned unserved for want of correct address but appellant opted not to try further, because against respondent no.1 company, the suit already stood decreed and the present appeal is only against the remaining respondents. On service of notice, respondents no. 2-4 entered appearance through counsel. At their request, I heard final arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and also examined the trial court record filed with the appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, relevant circumstances leading to the present appeal are enumerated hereafter.

(3.) During final arguments, learned counsel for appellant took me through above pleadings and evidence and contended that the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that he advanced the loan consequent upon "misrepresentation" by respondents no. 2 and 3. It was contended that respondents no. 2 and 3 "induced" the appellant into advancing the loan to respondent no.1, so they cannot be absolved of their liability. Learned counsel for appellant also argued that this is a fit case to lift corporate veil and hold all respondents jointly and severally liable to pay back the loan amount to the appellant.