2013 (3) TMI 116 - HC - Companies Law

Arrears of rent - respondent-company was in occupation of the premises belonging to the petitioner under lease license agreement who failed to vacate the premises and pay the licence fee - During the pendency of the suit filled by petitioner the parties arrived at compromise - respondent filed Civil Revision Petition before the High Court Mumbai who remanded to proceed with the case & Execution came to be closed in which the petitioner was directed to refund Rs. 22,00,000/- to the respondent-company and in turn, the respondent-company had agreed to vacate the vacant possession of the schedule premises & with regard to the Municipal Tax, Telephone charges etc, liberty was reserved to the petitioners to agitate the same before the Appropriate Forum - Held that - When these are the claims made in Annexure-A, the same has not been supported by any materials like electricity, telephone and municipal ,bills or even of municipal tax receipts etc. By claiming as per Annexure-A, descriptions are not at all supported and the same should have been claimed by producing original receipts, tax receipts etc. and further the same should have been proved by adducing evidence on behalf of the parties. Though Division Bench has specifically made an observation to provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, that has not been complied by the parties. More particularly the petitioner in proving his claims and virtually the claim is made only on the basis of the typed script and no original material is produced and the parties are not at all examined. Under these circumstances, the demand made in the statutory notice dated 12.10.1996 Annexure-O cannot be construed as debt and though liberty was reserved by the Mumbai High Court to the petitioners to agitate in respect of the those points, without referring to any liberty or opportunity, the same mandates to do that and agitation should be on the basis of the materials and evidence - company petition is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Winding up order under Companies Act challenged.
2. Dispute over arrears of rent from 1992 to 1995.
3. Interpretation of settlement terms between parties.
4. Validity of statutory notices issued.
5. Compliance with court observations on leading evidence.
6. Dismissal of company petition.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to a case where a winding-up order under section 433(e)(f) of the Companies Act was challenged. The respondent filed a suit which led to a remand for fresh consideration by the Division Bench, emphasizing the need for parties to present evidence before passing orders.

2. The petitioner claimed arrears of rent from 1992 to 1995 based on a compromise in LE Suit No.32/38-1992. Statutory notices were issued when the respondent failed to pay, leading to the current petition.

3. The respondent argued that the settlement terms in LE Suit No.32/38-1992 absolved them of further payments beyond what was agreed upon. The court noted that the terms were accepted by both parties, with the execution closed after certain payments were made.

4. The validity of the statutory notices issued by the petitioner was questioned by the respondent, who contended that the claims made were already settled in previous agreements and court orders.

5. Despite court observations to allow parties to present evidence, the petitioner failed to substantiate their claims adequately. The court emphasized the need for supporting materials and evidence to uphold claims, especially regarding arrears and charges.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the company petition, stating that the claims made in the statutory notices did not warrant interference under relevant sections of the Companies Act, highlighting the importance of evidence and compliance with court directives in such matters.