9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 40, rule 1 of the same Act for appointment of a receiver with respect to the leased equipment. On the said application, this court had appointed a receiver to take possession of the leased equipment. In the meantime the present application has been filed under sections 442 and 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying that proceedings pending in this court are liable to be stayed until the plaintiff seeks permission or leave of the company court which has allegedly passed the winding up order with respect to the defendant-company. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has chosen not to file a reply to the application and has argued for dismissal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. , just before the time for deposit allowed by the company judge was about to expire, the parties to the winding up petition entered into a compromise and mutually agreed to extend the time for payment and consent terms recorded between the parties were filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on or about January 28, 1994. It follows from this that the conditional winding up order passed by the company judge of the Bombay High Court did not come into operation. The order dated September 28, 1993, says in so many words that if the payment of the specified amount was made within the time specified, the winding up petition would stand dismissed. The time for payment was extended by the parties as per their mutual agreement. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As footed while dealing with another application of the defendant-company, the plaintiff has filed the main petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. The existence of the agreement between the parties is not disputed. The agreement in question is a lease agreement under which certain equipment was leased by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff also sought appointment of a receiver with respect to the leased equipment and this court was pleased to appoint an advocate of this court as a receiver. The receiver was not able to take possession of the leased equipment. In the meanwhile, the defendant filed two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
