Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (2) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ises was handed over on 1st May, 2010 and not December, 2010 as contended by the Respondent in its reply dated 9th July, 2012 to the Petitioner’s legal notice petitioners advocate submitted that correspondence exchanged between the parties and the payments made by the Respondent of service tax in December 2011 itself acknowledged that rent became payable from May 2010. His submission was that if in fact possession had not been handed over in May 2010 itself the Respondent ought to have raised such an objection when called upon to pay the service tax. He submitted that service tax for the period from May 2010 was paid without demur by the Respondent and this itself demonstrated the defence now taken was sham. In the absence of any documen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act ), the Petitioner, PLD International Pvt. Ltd., seeks the winding up of the Respondent M/s. Reebok India Company. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that in terms of an agreement dated 26th April, 2010 entered into between the parties, a copy of which agreement is enclosed with this petition as Annexure P-2, the Petitioner gave on rent to the Respondent the ground floor of the property at 422-425, Ghitorni Market, Opposite Metro Pillar No.132, MG Road, New Delhi-110 030 (hereafter rented premises ) on a monthly rent of Rs.4,25,000/- subject to deduction of tax at source on applicable rate and payment of service tax, with effect from 1st May, 2010. It is asserted by the Petitioner, which assertion is disputed by the Respondent, that po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enancy and stating that the vacant possession of the premises would be handed over to the Petitioner on 31st May, 2012. The Petitioner in response thereto sent a legal notice to the Respondent on 27th March, 2012 calling upon the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.31,84,534/-. It sent separately another notice on the same date regarding unpaid electricity bills in the sum of Rs.60,580/-. With the Respondent continuing to not pay the sums and another notice was sent by the Petitioner on 2nd May 2012 which quantified the outstanding amount as on 31st May 2012 at Rs.42,90,904/-. 5. It is stated that apart from not making payment of arrears the Respondent also did not hand over vacant possession of the rented premises to the Petitioner on 31st May .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence by the Respondent is palpably false and dishonest , the petition for winding up should be admitted. 9. The Court drew the attention of Mr. Kathpalia to the fact that although the lease was for a period of three years the agreement was not registered. Mr. Kathpalia responded by stating that the tenancy was not denied and even otherwise it could be proved irrespective of the agreement. In response to query whether there is any document to show that in fact possession of the vacant premises was handed over on 1st May, 2010 and not December, 2010 as contended by the Respondent in its reply dated 9th July, 2012 to the Petitioner s legal notice dated 14th May, 2012, Mr. Kathpalia submitted that correspondence exchanged between the parti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in regular and not summary proceedings . In the circumstances it was held that it would be inappropriate to entertain this petition; the parties must seek their remedies in arbitration to which they have expressly agreed . It was categorically held once a bona fide defence is shown to exists, arbitration can be efficacious and proper remedy; where the defence is mala fide and moonshine, arbitrable disputes would not exist in actuality . However, in the facts of the second case which was also decided by the same judgment the Court was satisfied that the defence of the Respondent was dishonest and accordingly admitted the petition for winding up. 12. In the present case this Court is not satisfied at this stage, on the basis of the docume .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates