9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent-company and vide leave/licence agreement dated July 22, 1987, Flat No. L-27 located on the first floor in Kailash Colony, New Delhi, was taken for the residence of Mr. Prasad from the respondent-company by the petitioner-company for a limited period. Under the terms of said agreement Rs. 3,00,000 were given by the petitioner to the respondent-company as a security deposit which was not to bear any interest and was to be refunded on vacation of the flat. Vide term No. 7 in the agreement, Mr. Prasad has also taken a personal liability for refund of the said amount and had agreed that the said amount could be adjusted in his salary and other dues which may be recoverable from the petitioner-company. Admittedly, on June 14, 1988, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date, i.e., August 23, 1988, the said documents were also returned to the respondent and the said account stood settled. It is significant to mention that the petitioner-company had not made reference to this letter dated August 23, 1988, in its petition or in its statutory notice served on the respondent. In rejoinder the factum of having received this letter along with cheques mentioned in this letter has not been denied. In respect of the documents pertaining to the flat which were given to the petitioner-company and which were to be returned on settlement of account of the said deposit of Rs. 3,00,000, the plea taken is that the company was not aware whether such documents have been returned as the records of the company were not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. In the present case, it is quite evident that there is a bona fide dispute raised with regard to the liability of the respondent-company. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the liability of the respondent is different from the liability which may be imposed on Mr. Prasad by the said lease agreement. He has also argued that if the accounts are to be gone into, it is the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 60,384.01 or so is due from Mr. Prasad. In this case, Mr. Prasad has also undertaken to get his gratuity and other amount due from the petitioner-company to him adjusted in the said deposit of Rs. 3,00,000 if the respondent was not in a position to pay back the deposit amount on vacation of the premises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
