A division bench of comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Vivek Agarwal observed that any amount already recovered from the Petitioner is to be kept in a fixed deposit by the respondents in a Nationalized Bank in a short term deposit.
The case began with Petitioner 1 moving the court for an ad-interim mandamus ordering Respondent 15, namely Celebration City Projects Private Limited not to take any forceful recovery measures in order to reclaim certificates of recovery worth 150 crore.
Anoop Trivedi,counsel for Petitioners submitted to the court that there was no recovery in the name of Petitioner 1 and Petitioner 2. Henceforth the dues claimed by the Respondent 15 could not be actualized from the properties of Petitioners. The counsel for the respondents Vrindhavan Mishra argued that if the curtain of the existence of a corporate was banished, the entire liability to remedy Respondent 15’s damages would rest unto the shoulders of Petitioner 1.
Petitioner 1 namely Rakesh Jain, was legally detained and was in custody for the accrual of the aforementioned amount. He was forced to sign certain cheques for and only then was he released.
The Court after much contemplation on the submission of both the parties held that it would not be in the light of law to hold Petitioner 1 a part of the corporate. The court identified the Petitioners as separate identities and hence decreed that no respondent 15 was not eligible to obtain dues from the properties of the Petitioners.