9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the deed and the same has been disputed at the earliest point of time even in the suit seeking recovery of rents, the defence taken by the respondent is bona fide and not a moonshine. It is based on facts and material. Therefore, when there is a bona fide dispute with regard to debt as claimed by the petitioner and when the dispute is likely to succeed in a point of law, it would be highly inappropriate to wind up the respondent-company. Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner informed that the first respondent was inducted into the schedule premises as licensee and M/s. Innovative Property Management Company paid the minimum Guaranteed Rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month, for the months between October 2008 to August 2009. The copies of the rent receipts are produced as Annexure H series. 4. It is stated that certain disputes arose between the respondent and the petitioner's son Mr. J. Somashekar, as regards the shareholding Agreement executed between them and other related matters. The petitioner's son instituted proceedings in Company Petition No.65/2009 before the Company Law Board, Southern Regional Bench, Chennai under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act and the same was disputed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and has failed to pay the arrears of rent as demanded and since the respondent-company is liable to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner for the period December 2009 to 20th November, 2010 in a sum of Rs. 12,22,795/- at the current rate of Rs. 16.91 per sq.ft for the total area of 6026 sq. ft in a sum of Rs. 1,01,899/- per month, the present petition is filed. 5. On notice being issued, the respondents filed their objections. 6. Heard counsels and examined the records. 7. The entire case of the petitioner is based on the Compromise Petition entered into in COP No.65/2009 before the Company Law Board, Chennai. It is their case that in the said proceedings, the Compromise Petition entered into between Sri. Somashekar and the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition. That the debts as pleaded by the petitioner is wholly based on the Compromise Petition entered into between J. Somashekhar and the respondent-company. However, it is contended that the compromise have been effectively entered into. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, the Compromise Petition would have to be looked into. The petitioner has failed to produce the said Compromise Petition before this Court. Since the entire claim of the petitioner is purely based on the Compromise Petition and the said Compromise Petition has not been placed before this Court, it is not possible for this Court to determine as to the rights of the petitioner so far as the debt is concerned. Hence, on this ground alone, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
