Skip to main content

Director Of Bankrupt Company Liable For Damage Suffered By The Employee

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania developed interpretation of provisions of the Tort law providing more guarantees to the employee injured at work in case when company (the employer) went bankrupt and extended regulations of company director liability. The Supreme Court found that in case of indirect liability (company is liable for the damages caused by its employees) and liquidation of such Company due to bankruptcy the damage incurred to injured person shall not be left because of Company bankruptcy. An employee who was injured at work shall have right to direct his request of damage compensation to the person who caused the damage. In this particular case it is the director of the Company. This interpretation is based on Principles of European Tort Law providing for liability for auxiliaries.
As to the merits of the case, the employee was injured at work and the director of the Company was found guilty for the criminal offence related to labor safety and failure to ensure safe conditions of work. The Company under the provisions of indirect liability was obliged to compensate the damage to the employee but the damage was not compensated because the Company went bankrupt. Therefore the injured employee requested liability of director of the Company to compensate damage. The director of the Company disputed his liability arguing that he is not the right defendant and that the liability to compensate losses ends with liquidation of the Company which is under indirect liability provisions liable for the damage caused by its employees.
To support mentioned interpretation the Supreme Court referred to provisions of recourse where the Company which compensated damage to the persons injured by fault of its employees shall have the recourse right to cover expenses it suffered. According to the Labor law regulations the employee shall compensate fully the expenses of the Company related to the compensation of the damage caused by its employees in case of criminal offence, therefore the Supreme Court found that the director who was found guilty for the criminal offence shall be liable for the damage caused thereby of injured employee in case when the Company (the Employer) goes bankrupt.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
24 comments
Read more

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...
Post a Comment
Read more

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...
1 comment
Read more