9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel, appearing for respondents Nos. 4 and 9 sought 10 days time to file counter to the interim reliefs prayed by the petitioner and counter has been filed on September 15, 2009, after serving copy on the other side. The matter was heard on September 15, 2009, at length and this Bench adjourned the matter to September 22, 2009, at 2.30 p.m., to peruse the lease agreement dated December 28, 1977, whereat the respondents disputed the said lease agreement has not been registered and cannot be taken into consideration. The matter was heard today on the interim reliefs sought for by the petitioners. 2. Shri Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the company entered into a lease agreement dated February 11, 1974 (d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed April 18, 2005, with a third party, i.e., M/s. RPS Orchid P. Ltd., for developing the premises of the company from where it is presently carrying on the present business of cinema theatre. The petitioners apprehend that since the original lease period is coming to an end on September 30, 2009, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 being owners of the leased property may not give effect to the subsequent lease deed dated December 28, 1977, thereby the only business of the first respondent-company may come to a standstill and requested this Bench to grant interim reliefs to protect the interest of the shareholders. 3. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the company petition they also alleged various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of interlocutory nature are beyond the scope of the main petition. 4. Shri Ramprasad, learned Counsel, appearing for respondents Nos. 4 and 9 filed a counter averting to each of the interim reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Learned Counsel dealing with respect to the first interim relief whereby the petitioners sought an injunction restraining the third and fourth respondents from evicting the first respondent-company is concerned, learned Counsel submitted that this Bench does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same since the matter is purely covered by the jurisdiction of the civil courts as far as the matters touching any right, title or interest of a person/entity in respect to any immovable property. He further su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh several supplemental deeds were executed and registered between the parties, for the purposes of reducing the rents fixed under the original lease deed dated February 11,1974, without touching, altering, or amending the duration of lease which shows that the parties have been firm as regards to the duration of lease. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In view of paucity of time, I intend to decide the interim relief as prayed at sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (ix) of interim reliefs. The other interim reliefs can be examined at a later point of time. I have perused the original lease deed executed on February 11, 1974, whereby respondents Nos. 3 and 4 being the owners of the property executed the lease deed in favour of the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company should be wound up. In the present case, the petitioners being the shareholders sought direction to restrain the third and fourth respondent from evicting the first respondent-company from the leased property belonging to them. Though the petitioners amongst other things raised the acts of mismanagement, this Bench can look into those aspects complained of only after affording an opportunity to the respondents by filing their counters and objections, if any. So far as the prayer seeking an interim injunction restraining the third and fourth respondent from evicting the first respondent-company from the leased property and also to give effect to the lease deed dated December 28, 1977, this Bench does not have any powers under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are summary proceedings and this Bench can only grant equitable relief and cannot go into the disputed documents, more particularly the agreements referred above. The extension of lease and whether lease deed dated December 28, 1977, to be given effect to or not is the prerogative of the owners of the property, i.e., the third and fourth respondents. If there is breach of any contractual obligations the aggrieved parties can approach a competent court of law but not before this Bench. To protect the interests of the shareholders, this Bench can pass appropriate orders under Section 402 as stated supra. However at the same time this Bench cannot go beyond its scope more particularly when the proceedings under Section 397/398 are summary pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
