9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law that the provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding amount but it can be invoked to initiate CIRP for justified reasons as per the Code. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Private Limited [ 2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT ] has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. The claim made in the instant Company Petition based on the expired Lease Deed as stated supra and that there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner to file Civil Suit to evict the tenant/Corporate Debtor and to recover alleged outstanding arrears of rent - Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent herein vide lease deed dated 13.02.2013. However, the Respondent had continued to occupy premises till date and has not been regularly paying rent. (4) Therefore, the Petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2018 calling upon the Respondent to pay the arrears of rent amounting to ₹ 41,53,754/- for the period from December, 2016 to February, 2018. Subsequently, the Petitioner issued demand notice dated 18.07.2018 in Form 3 U/r 5 of I & B (AAA) Rules, 2016 by calling upon the Respondent to pay the arrears of rent amounting to ₹ 41,53,754/- for the period December, 2016 to February, 2018. However, there was no reply to the above said Notices nor there was any attempt to make any payment but the Respondent Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them, have graciously accepted such offer. The Petitioner however, insists on harassing the Respondent by filing this present Petition. The Petitioner is clearly motivated not by seeking for recovery of any outstanding sums due but only by revenge against the Respondent. (4) The Respondent is a going concern, but its business has suffered in the last couple of years, which is why the Respondent was unable to clear its dues with the Petitioner. However, the Respondent is willing even till date to discuss a possibility of settlement with the Petitioner. Therefore, the issue may be referred to Mediation Forum to settle their dispute and thus petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard Shri Theerthesh.B.S, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Shri Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Lease Deed by either of the parties after deducting amounts towards damage to the property, arrears of rent and other charges, unpaid electricity and water charges etc. D. Payment of Municipal and other Taxes: 1. The LESSOR shall bear and pay all the past, present and future municipal taxes weather existing or enhanced, the property taxes, rates and Cesses payable to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. 2. The LESSEE shall pay in addition to the rent as states in Para A above, service tax at the rates in force monthly (Currently 12.36%) together with the rent. 3. In the event of the LESSOR failing to pay the said taxes and if demanded by the statutory authority from the LESSEE to pay, the LESSEE may at its discretion pay the Municipal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handover, at least portion of the leased premises with a request to clear the arrears of rent. However, the Petitioner failed to take appropriate legal action but chose to issue a notice dated 18.07.2018, in Form 3 under the Code by inter alia demanding to pay an outstanding amount of ₹ 41,53,754/-. 7. The Petitioner has not filed any document to show that the lease, in question, was extended beyond period of three (3) years. Therefore, the lease came to an end in the year 2016 by efflux of time. And thus, there is no legal basis/document to show that the Respondent is liable to pay alleged outstanding rental arrears for an amount of ₹ 41,53,754/- for period of December, 2016 to February, 2018. 8. As per the law, the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
