Back

Karta's Personal Assets at Risk for HUF Debts

Blog Post Thumbnail

Many business families in India operate through a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), often under the impression that it provides a shield for the personal assets of its members. However, a recent decision by the Bombay High Court in Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF serves as a powerful reminder that when it comes to the debts of the HUF, the Karta’s liability is personal, absolute, and unlimited.

The case involved the enforcement of an arbitral award where the principal decretal sum was approximately INR 12.52 crores against the HUF. When the HUF’s disclosed assets were found to be worth less than 5% of the decretal sum, the award-holder sought to enforce the award against the personal assets of the Karta.

The Karta’s Defence

The Karta of the HUF raised a significant objection, arguing that his personal assets could not be attached to satisfy the HUF's debt. His primary contentions were:

  1. The arbitral award for the principal amount was passed only against the HUF as an entity, not against him in his personal capacity.
  2. The HUF is a distinct juristic/corporate personality in the eyes of the law, separate from its Karta.
  3. Since the arbitrator had declined to pass the award against him personally, the issue was settled (res judicata), and it could not be reopened during execution proceedings.

The High Court's Ruling

The Bombay High Court decisively rejected all of the Karta's arguments and reaffirmed the settled position of law regarding a Karta's liability. The Court held that the liability of a Karta for the unsatisfied debts of the HUF is "personal" and "unlimited."

The Court clarified that while an HUF is treated as a separate entity for limited purposes like taxation, this does not create a corporate veil that protects the Karta from the HUF's liabilities. The Court emphasised the unique and special status of the Karta, whose liability is distinct from that of ordinary coparceners. While other members are typically liable only to the extent of their share in the coparcenary property, the Karta, who manages the family's affairs, is personally liable for debts contracted for the family business.

The Court also noted that this principle is especially pertinent where the HUF is a "trading HUF" that carries on a business, as was the case here.

Key Takeaways

This judgment offers critical insights for anyone operating a business through an HUF:

  1. No Limited Liability for the Karta: The Karta cannot use the HUF structure to shield personal assets from debts incurred by the HUF. If the HUF’s assets are insufficient, creditors have the right to proceed against the Karta's personal property.
  2. Execution Is Key: The question of the Karta's personal liability becomes crucial at the execution stage of a decree or award. Even if the original decree is only against the HUF, the Karta’s personal liability is triggered by operation of law if the HUF cannot satisfy the debt.
  3. Distinction from Other Members: The ruling reinforces the fundamental distinction between the liability of a Karta and that of other coparceners. The Karta’s role as the family's manager comes with immense power but also significant personal financial risk.

This decision underscores the need for Kartas of business-oriented HUFs to be acutely aware of the personal financial exposure they carry. The traditional HUF structure does not offer the same liability protection as a modern corporate entity.