below is a short summary of the cases sent and mentioned.
PC Agarwala (2005) 8 SCC 104
This does not help. Here certain directors were sought to be made liable under the Payment of Wages Act by holding them personally responsible for the affairs of the company. The SC held that such an approach was permissible only if the statute allowed the same, and as the payment of wages act did not provide for it, directors of a company could not be made personally liable.
Meeking Transmission WP Tax No. 749/2003 dated 14.2.2008
This also does not help. This is case on piercing the corporate veil, and the circumstances when the same is permissible.
If we are going to argue that corporate veil should be pierced then the law laid down here may be relevant (see para 70)
1997 AWC 645 Adesh Kumar Jain and others Vs. U.P. S.E.B. and others, 1998 All.C.J. 266 (referred in Hamirpu Awas case)
the Court while rejecting a similar contention that the Director of the company would be personally liable for dues of the company held that though it is true that the Director of a company may be an agent of the company but that would not result in making the assets of the company to be the assets of the Director and vice versa. It further held that in the absence of any statutory provisions, recovery from the personal assets of the Director cannot be made Not relevant
Shri Kundanmal Dabriwala
MANU/PH/3320/2011The case deals with the question whether a debt which has been satisfied/extinguished between the borrower and the lender can be enfroced against the guarantor for the remainer. Here pursuant to a court order, Haryana State financial corporation had extinguished its claim and therefore subsequently was not allowed to claim from the guarantor. Not relevant
IFCI v. The Cannanore Spinning, AIR 2002 SC 1841 - see last 4 lines of para 36 (on discharge of guarantor)
"Significantly, it may be stated that the liability of the guarantor cannot but be stated to the a strict liability and even if the principal debtor is discharged from his liability unless such discharge is through the act of the creditor without consent of the surety/guarantor, the creditor' right of action against the surety is preserved."
Kailash Nath Agarwal v. PICUP, AIR2003SC1886
The question before the court was whether a recovery action can be taken against guarantors in view of Section 22 of the SICA that bar proceedings against the company which is under BIFR. There is nothing on the liability of directors or them as guarantors.
