9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the company required 1000 gas cylinders for its use and business but the company was unable to purchase the same out of its own finance and, therefore, it had approached the petitioner for arrang- ing lease of the cylinders. Thereafter, there were negotiations between the parties and ultimately an agreement was executed on 6-7-1992. As per the said agreement the petitioner had arranged and granted a lease of 1000 gas cylinders to the company. The period of lease was 5 years and the company had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3,15,900 every quarter of the year beginning from 6-7-1992. The agreement also provided that in case there was delay in making the payment then the company was to pay interest at 30 per cent. It is the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for contesting the petition on three grounds. The first defence is that the claim of the petitioner is not honest, true and correct one. There was no agreement to pay interest at the rate of 30 per cent and the agreed rate was only 13 per cent. The second objection is that the lease amounts of July 1993, October, 1992 and January 1993 had become time barred on the date of the petition and, therefore, the petition is not tenable as it involved a time barred claim. The third objection is that there was an agreement between the parties to have jurisdiction at Bombay only and consequently this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. It is also contended that the total assets of the company are more than Rs. 10 crores and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Nawabzada Captain Syed Murtasa Ali Khan v. Stressed Concrete Constructions ( P. ) Ltd. AIR 1960 Mad. 254. 7. As far as the defence about the rate of interest is concerned, it is not necessary to go into the said aspect at all because the company has not made out its defence as regards the principal amount. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas Co. ( supra ) where there is no doubt that the company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order but the exact amount of the debt is disputed the Court will make a winding up order without requiring the creditor to quantify the debt precisely. Here, the company has not paid the principal amount which according to the petitioner is Rs. 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas Co. ( supra ) that where the debt is undisputed (or not disputable), the Court will not act upon the defence that the company has the ability to pay the debt, but the company chooses not to pay the particular debt. No other creditor has come forward to oppose the petition. 11. As regards the contention that the arrears of rent cannot be said to be a debt, the contention is thoroughly misconceived. In the case of Bai Dahiba ( supra ) , this Court was concerned with the liability of the tenant to pay the arrears of rent to the successor in title of the landlord from whom the tenant had taken the premises on lease. The discussion in the context of the said facts is, therefore, not at all r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
