9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no admitted amount that can be held to be admittedly due as payable by the respondent to the Petitioner.Since the petition involves disputed questions of fact and the defence raised by the Respondent is not moonshine, the parties would have to have them settled before the appropriate civil forum.The petition seeking winding up of the respondent company is thus held not to maintainable. - Winding up petition dismissed. - CO.PET. 54/2014 & CA No.167/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2014 - Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sacchin Puri with Mr. Vishesh Issar, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Mr. Ravi Data, Mr. Aman Bhalla and Mr. Siddharth Chopra, Advocates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23/- towards expenses incurred by the petitioner on the premises. 6. The respondent Company was called upon to take possession of the premises on 15.11.2012 and to handover the demand draft for the amount claimed to be due by the petitioner. 7. The present petition has been filed contending that the respondent has failed to pay the admitted amount of ₹ 80,00,000/- i.e. the amount paid towards the security deposit and the advance rental which was an admitted debt and was not paid by the respondent despite service of notice of demand dated 26.09.2013. 8. The respondent has contested the petition. The defence of the respondent is that the petitioner was always aware of the mortgage and the availing of the credit facilities by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted that the respondent has also filed a petition seeking winding up of the petitioner for failure to pay the amounts in terms of the lease deed to the respondent. 14. It is contended by the respondent that the petition involves substantial disputed question of fact which cannot be settled in the summary proceedings under Sections 433-434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner should be relegated to availing of his remedies before a civil forum. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the lock-in-period was terminable under certain circumstances and since the circumstances had arisen, the lease was terminated by the petitioner. This fact is disputed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative vs. Harbans Lal Gupta, 2009(107) DRJ 418 (DB) to contend that where the tenant had vacated the tenanted premises and notified the landlord to take delivery of possession, the lease comes to an end and the refusal of the landlord to accept the possession will amount to delivery of possession. 20. This judgment is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. The Judgment is not arising out of a winding up petition but is arising out of an action in civil law. In the present case, there are disputed questions of fact involved. The petitioner has contended that the possession was offered to the respondent and, as such, the liability of the petitioner has ceased towards the payment of rent. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
