The Supreme Court has held that a winding up petition against a company would not be maintainable in a tenancy dispute in the absence of any specific finding as to the rate of rent and the period of default committed by the tenant company. In this case, Raju Jhurani vs M/s Germindia Ltd, the landlord evicted the tenant company, but claimed arrears of various dues. Since they were not paid, the landlord moved a winding up petition under the Companies Act. The Calcutta high court rejected the petition on the ground that the winding-up petition was not maintainable as there was no admitted arrears and there was no ascertained amount due in respect of which a winding-up order could be passed.
The Supreme Court upheld this view and dismissed the landlord’s appeal observing that “there are various stages involved in deciding the amount of rents and the periods of default and also the amount to be ultimately calculated on account of such default and the same cannot be tried in a summary way, without adducing proper evidence. It is, therefore, necessary that such issues be heard and tried in a properly constituted suit for recovery of such dues.”
Call for fresh tenders upheld
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Mangal Amusement Park Ltd challenging the change of land use of its land from ‘commercial’ to a ‘regular park’ in the town planning scheme of Indore and also the decision of the Madhya Pradesh government to call for fresh tenders for the land. The court ruled that the company had only a licence on the land and not a lease. Moreover, the agreement had lapsed due to expiry of time and therefore the company could not claim any right for renewal of the agreement. The court also accepted the argument of the Indore Development Authority that the company had not utilised the land fully for many years and the fixtures like the games and rides could be removed without financial loss.
Claim of refund rejected
The Supreme Court has upheld the judgment of the National Consumer Commission which had rejected the claim of an allottee of a house sold by the Karnataka housing board for refund. He had agreed for registration of the sale deed showing the cost of the flat as Rs.4,31,918 although the actual cost was Rs.5,23,232. The concession was made by the housing board. The allottee then claimed refund according to the cost shown in the registered deed. Dismissing the appeal in the case, S Sreenivasa Murthy vs State of Karnataka, the court stated that “having taken advantage of the offer made by the board to get the deed registered at a price less than the actual cost of the flat, he cannot turn around and demand the refund.”
