9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under ss. 391 and 392 of the Companies Act regarding possession and payment. 2. Interpretation of the scheme of arrangement dated July 29, 1968, in relation to possession. 3. Enforcement of possession and payment obligations under the scheme. 4. Claim for damages of &8377; 2,94,000 by the company. 5. Jurisdiction under s. 446 for trying the claim for damages. 6. Application under s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim relief. Analysis: 1. The company filed two applications under ss. 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, seeking possession of a property and payment from Anand. An agreement in a scheme of arrangement from 1968 obligated Anand to hand over possession and fixtures of the property to the company. Anand's continued possession led to a claim of &8377; 2,94,000 due to the company. The court held that Anand, having agreed to hand over possession, cannot retain occupation, and the court can enforce the scheme under s. 392. 2. The main issue revolved around the delivery of possession as per the scheme of arrangement. Anand was bound to hand over vacant possession "forthwith" in 1968. Despite being in possession presently, Anand had no right to retain possession after agreeing to the compromise. The court emphasized the significance of the term "forthwith" and concluded that Anand must deliver possession immediately, with payment to follow after the property's sale. 3. An argument was raised that possession cannot be demanded until Anand is paid the agreed sum. However, the court rejected this, stating that the obligations need not be performed simultaneously. An order was made to secure Anand's interest by setting aside the payment amount from the property sale proceeds. Anand was directed to vacate the property immediately, emphasizing that possession would enhance the property's sale value. 4. The company also sought a claim of &8377; 2,94,000 from Anand. However, the court ruled that such a claim for damages cannot be tried in proceedings under ss. 391 and 392 of the Act. The court rejected the argument to try the claim under s. 446, stating that it applies in specific winding-up scenarios. 5. Regarding jurisdiction under s. 446, the court clarified that it does not apply in the absence of a winding-up order or appointment of a provisional liquidator. The court directed the company to pursue its claim for damages through the ordinary civil court process. The claim for damages under s. 446 was rejected. 6. An additional application under s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure sought interim relief, which was addressed through an undertaking by Anand not to remove or transfer any fixtures or furniture from the property. The court deemed the undertaking sufficient, and no further orders were necessary in this regard. Both applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
