High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Pardeep Kumar v. M/s Punjab Electro Optics Systems Ltd. & - CA-8-2006  RD-P&H 1473 (7 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Company Appeal No.8 of 2006 in
Company Petition No.66 of 2004 in
Company Petition No.77 of 1998
Date of decision: March 10, 2006.
Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate
M/s Punjab Electro Optics Systems Ltd. & Ors.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Surya Kant, J. - This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the Act) is directed against the order, dated 9.2.2006, passed by the Learned Single Judge in Company Petition No.66 of 2004 and C.A.
No.387 of 2004, inter-alia, declining stay on dispossession of the appellant/other similarly placed tenants from the premises of the company in liquidation and permitting the Official Liquidator to take over the physical possession of the sheds F4 to F8 situated in Phase VIII, Mohali.
. While dismissing the appellant's application for staying its dispossession, the Learned Company Judge has observed as follows:- Company Appeal No.8 of 2006 - 2 -
"A perusal of the record shows that the winding up petition was filed on 4.4.1998 in this Court, in which the order of winding up was passed on 4.10.2001. The alleged tenants are relying upon lease deed dated 1.6.1999 and thereafter on a payment of Rs.6,000/- monthly rent. The said documents are allegedly executed after the presentation of the winding up petition before this Court. However, none of the respondents have attached any document to show payment of rent through Banking channels nor has attached any Income Tax record to prove that such rent was being paid by them. In fact reply on behalf of respondent No.5 shows that the rent is not being paid. The time is sought for payment of rent. A Division bench of this Court has already found that it is only a way to frustrate the recovery proceedings initiated by a public financial institution. The said device is being put up by the alleged tenants to frustrate the delivery of possession as well.
The stand of the respondents is totally false, untenable and has been taken just to frustrate the action of the Official Liquidator to realize the maximum possible price of the property of the Company in liquidation." . We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have perused the record.
. It could not be disputed by learned counsel that the lease-deed, on the strength of which 'tenancy' is claimed, was executed on 1st June,
1999, i.e., much after filing of the winding up petition on 4.4.1998. There is not an iota of evidence on record to show the payment of rent to the Company Appeal No.8 of 2006 - 3 -
landlord-company in liquidation. No such payment of rent is reflected in the income-tax returns of the appellant and/or other tenants. The inference drawn by the learned Company Judge that the 'tenancy' appears to be an outcome of a sham transaction, therefore, is fully justified.
. In this view of the matter, no exception can be made to the order under appeal passed by the Learned Company Judge.
[ Surya Kant ]
March 10, 2006. [ Uma Nath Singh ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.