9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against High Court's decision on lease agreement under Companies Act, 1956. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned a lease agreement granted by the appellant to the Company for felling trees and selling them, subject to royalty payments. The Company claimed that the appellant did not fulfill obligations under an arrangement, leading to financial difficulties. The High Court decreed a sum against the appellant for appropriated machinery, which was affirmed by the Division Bench with a condition. The appellant raised issues regarding the constitutional provision applicability and the decree's correctness. 2. The appellant contended that the arrangement was governed by S.122 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, citing a previous case. The Company argued that its claim was based on the lease agreement, not the arrangement. The Court rejected the appellant's argument, stating that the Company's claim focused on obligations under the lease agreement, not the arrangement, thus not affected by the constitutional provision. 3. Regarding the decree for the machinery, the Court found the Single Judge's reliance on witness statements without documentary evidence problematic. The Division Bench's conclusion on machinery control was unsubstantiated. The Company claimed documentary evidence supported its case. The Court set aside the High Court's decision on the machinery decree, remanding the matter for redetermination based on evidence. 4. The Court upheld other directions of the Single Judge, such as referring claims to a Commissioner for determination. The appeal was disposed of, emphasizing expeditious resolution of the case.
|
