9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions) Act, 1985 ( the Act ). The respondent in particular has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 75 Comp. Cas. 440. The learned counsel has stressed upon paragraph 13 of the said judgment wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows : "We are also unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-company that the leasehold interest of the appellant-company in the premises leased out to it is property for the purpose of section 22(1). It is no doubt true that the leasehold interest of the lessee in the premises leased out to him is property which can be transferred and the said interest can also be attached and sold by way of execution in satisfaction of a decree against the lessee. In that sense, it can be said that the leasehold interest of a company is its property. But the question is whether the same is true in respect of the interest of a company which is in occupation of the premises as a statutory tenant by virtue of the protection conferred by the relevant rent law because, in the instant case on the date of reference to the board, the proceedings fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 87 Comp. Cas. 251 . Construing the judgment of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. s case ( supra ), the learned Single Judge of this Court held : ". . . This provision shows that it is attracted only when the proceedings are with respect to any of the properties of the industrial company. In the present case, the leased equipment cannot be said to be the property of the company. This lease agreement between the parties shows that the ownership of the equipment, the subject-matter of lease throughout remains with the lessor, in the present case, the plaintiff. When the ownership of the equipment, the subject-matter of the lease agreement, remains vested with the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the present proceedings relate to property of the industrial company...." (p. 255) 4. The learned Single Judge further held as follows : ". . . In taking this view, I find support from a decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 75 Comp. Cas. 440 ; AIR 1992 SC 1439. This was a case of lease of a property in favour of a company which was under this SICA. It was held that leasehold rights in a property cannot be said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regard, I am supported by the decision of this Court in Credit Capital Finance Corporation v. Foremost Industries Ltd. [1996] 87 Comp. Cas. 251 ; AIR 1996 Delhi 310. In that case, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of lease of certain equipment in favour of the defendant-company and filed a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The receiver was appointed in respect of the leased equipment. The defendant-company filed two applications, one was a petition under section 446 of the Companies Act and the second was an application contending that under section 22 of the SICA, the receiver could not have been appointed. This Court, after interpreting section 22 of the SICA, came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 22 would be attracted only when the proceedings were in respect of any of the properties of the industrial company. Since ownership of the equipment, the subject-matter of lease, throughout remained with the petitioner in that case, therefore, appointment of the receiver was upheld because section 22 was not attracted." (p. 196) 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these observat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid judgments I am satisfied that the reliance by the learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. ( supra ) of the Supreme Court and in particular the observations in paragraph 13 of the said judgment extracted hereinabove is not justified. The Supreme Court had made the above observations qua a leasehold interest in immovable property. However, there is nothing in the observations in paragraph 13 in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. ( supra ), judgment which could warrant a proposition that the leased equipment would also fall within the purview of section 22. The Supreme Court while holding that the leasehold interest of a property was not covered by section 22 held that the tenancy was statutory by virtue of the protection of the relevant rent law but the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court cannot be construed to justify the plea that section 22 relates to the leased equipment. The observations of the Supreme Court that the leasehold interest of a company was in a sense property of the company were made in the context of the lease of an immovable property and cannot be said to apply to the lease of an eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
