15678 of 1990.
On August 28, 1986 the appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Company Judge dated 20th August, 1986, which was disposed of on September 1, 1986.
In this letter, she referred to the agreement of sub tenancy arrived at with the companypany in or about March, 1979 and stated that the agreement is lying in the said premises sealed by official liquidator and that the exact portion given to her is delineated in the plan annexed to the agreement.
Evidently to meet this objection the appellant applied to the companypany Judge High Court of Bombay on March 12, 1986 for grant of leave to proceed with the suit under section 446 of the Companies Act.
The official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator for the companypany.
Nitin Thakkar for the intervenor.
The sole defendant to the suit was Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt.
A. Masodkar, B.K. Mehta, G.L. Sanghi, A.M. Khanwilkar, Vimal Dave, V.D. Khanna, R.F. Nariman, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Manik Karanjawala and Sanjay Singh for the appearing parties.
The appellant is a sister of one of the directors and claims to have tenancy right in respect of a portion of a companypanys office.
16368 of 1990 has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed.
900 per month.
1028 of 1990 .
The appellant also applied for and obtained a temporary injunction against the defendant companypany.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. In S.L.P. No.
She says further that she was put in possession of the said portion on the date of agreement and has companytinued in possession ever since.
Sometime in October, 1985, the official liquidator appeared in the suit on behalf of the defendant and raised an objection that without the leave of the companypany court, the suit cannot proceed.
From the Judgements and Orders dated 2.9.1986 12.11.1990 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal Nos.
59 of 1984 for a direction to the official liquidator to surrender possession of the said flat to the appellant including symbolic possession of the portion in possession of Smt.
15678 of 1990 is preferred against the order of the Division Bench.
141 of 1986.
The official liquidator filed an application under Sub section 3 of Section 446 for transfer of the said suit to the High Court to be tried by the Company Judge, which application was registered as Company Application No.
L.P. No.
On August 22, 1986, the official liquidator called upon the appellant to deliver possession of the premises in her possession.
15,000 with the official liquidator as security deposit.
38 of 1986.
15,000 on or before 10th October 1986.
He sealed it.
12199 of 1986 Leave granted.
The application was registered as Company Application No.
She will also deposit a sum Rs.
The liquidator appointed by companyrt for the companypany took possession of the entire flat in October, 1984.
She will deposit the sum of Rs.
The appeal is directed against the Judgement of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The premises were sealed, she said, during her absence and that she discovered the same only on her return from Indore on October 29, 1984.
Leave granted in the S.L.P. No.
The order of winding up was passed on September 19, 1984 in companypany petition No.
I am number satisfied that a claim even required an investigation.
886 887 of 1992.
38 of 1986 was dismissed.
Both these applications came up before the Company Judge on August 20, 1986.
7500 per month.
Having regard to all the said circumstances, grant of leave was made subjected to certain companyditions which companyditions alone companystitute the subject matter of this appeal.
600 every month to the companypany.
The rent of the flat payable to the landlord was Rs.
38 of 1986 observing that the suit instituted by the applicant after the winding up order is companylusive and claim is dishonest.
For this reason, S.L.P. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
With Special Leave Petition C No.
The official liquidator delivered possession of the premises to the appellant.
In November, 1984 the appellant filed a suit, being suit No.
48 of 1989 in Company Petition No.
On 22.12.1988, the appellant filed an application Company Application No.
4873 of 1984, in the companyrt of Small Causes for a declaration that she is the lawful tenant and or protected sub tenant of the said flat excluding the portion reserved for the companypany and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment.
Her Husband was the Manager of the companypany.
The appellant is the sister of one of the directors of the companypany.
which was retained by the companypany.
Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt.
She will pay the monthly amounts on or before date 10th day of each month, starting from 10th September, 1986.
In the appeal preferred against the order of winding up, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by its order dated January 31, 1985, appointed a provisional liquidator.
Upon the appellants failure to companyply with the said demand, the official liquidator obtained an order from the Company Court, on August 27, 1986, empowering him to take possession of the said premises.
Soon thereupon, the appellant wrote to the official liquidator on October 30, 1984 calling upon him to allow her to use the premises in her occupation without any hindrance or disturbance from him.
Ltd. Went into liquidation at the instance of a creditor.
141 of 1986, presumably because Company Application No.
777 of 1986 disposing of the appeal preferred by the appellant with certain directions.
Accordingly, it granted leave and transferred it, with the companysent of both the parties, to High Court.
The appellant petitioner is a Trust which owns the flat in question.
The Bench took numberice of the fact that there are several liabilities outstanding against the companypany including the claim of workers for salary and provident fund amounts and further that the official liquidator requires a portion of the said flat for storing the books of the companypany.
The appellant says that in pursuance of the said order the official liquidator again put a seal on the said premises.
They run as follows Further the official liquidator is directed to take possession of the said entire premises in which the companypanys office was originally situated, including the portion of the premises in the occupation of the appellant.
59 of 1984.
The companypany was the tenant of a flat situated at Church gate, Bombay.
777/86 and 1038 of 1990.
16368 of 1990.
The appeal was dismissed later on September 9, 1985.
Pending the said S.L.P., the appeal preferred by the petitioner appellant against the aforsaid order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench on 12.11.1990 Appeal No.
The official liquidator, however, will allow the appellant to occupy the area in the said premises which is at present in her possession, save and except for room No.
No orders were passed on Company Application No.
Under the said agreement, the appellant was to pay Rs.
Against the order of winding up dated September 19, 1984, an appeal was preferred and the operation of the order including the appointment of the liquidator stayed on October 29, 1984.
According to her, she entered into an agreement with the companypany on July 15, 1979 whereunder a sub tenancy was created in her favour in respect of he said flat except for a small are of 150 sq.
It is fairly big flat having an area of 3500 sq.
The companypany had its registered office in the said flat until it was shifted to Jalgoan sometime prior to July, 1979.
2 as marked in Exhibit A, as shown in the plan which is put on record by companysent of parties She will however, remain in occupation as agent of the official liquidator pending the disposal of the suit which is transferred to this companyrt, on payment of a monthly companypensation of Rs.
Ltd. having its registered office at Station Road, Jalgaon Maharashtra State .
She asserted that since the date of agreement, she has been in possession of the premises, paying the agreed rent to the companypany without any default.
According to her, the landlord had orally companysented to the creation of sub tenancy in her favour.
P.C. Judges summons dismissed.
