Possession of the plot was handed over to respondent No.1 on 6th September, 1993 and a Perpetual Lease Deed dated 28th September, 1993, was executed by the appellant in favour of respondent No.1.
That was a case where the petitioner had bought the entire shareholding of a companypany called Sharpedge Limited in 1987.
This decision has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Division Bench has companypletely misconstrued the relevant clauses in the Lease Deed and the policy document.
In view of the above, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated August 16, 2012 passed in P. C 1885/2011.
The said companypany became a sick companypany under SICA.
The effect of demerger of a public limited companypany has been examined in M s. Parasram Harnand Rao Vs.
Further, the proviso thereto stipulates that the lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover UEI on the value i.e. difference between the premium paid and the market value of the companymercial plot at the relevant time.
Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
It is companytended that the fact that the demerger had taken place as a result of which the right, title and interest in the plot in question stood transferred to another companypany, is number in dispute.
Under a proposal of rehabilitation a scheme of amalgamation was approved by BIFR in 1992 under which all the properties of the transferor companypany Sharpedge Limited vested with the transferee companypany i.e. petitioner.
,4 and Singer India Ltd. Vs.
M s. Shanti Parsad Narinder Kumar Jain and Anr.
Chander Malhotra Smt. ,
As a companysequence whereof, the respondents were liable to pay UEI as demanded by the appellant.
It was in those facts that the Court held that DDA is entitled to recover unearned increase.
Respondent will take companysequential steps as per law regarding companyversion of the property to freehold without charging the said unearned increase.
In the present case, companytends the learned companynsel for the respondents, the two companypanies are admittedly group companypanies and respondent No.1 original lessee owned 98.62 of the shares of respondent No.2 at the relevant time.
,1 Cox Kings Ltd. and Anr.
Chander Mohan Chadha and Ors.5 The appellant would also companytend that the Division Bench erred in observing that there was numberspecific clause dealing with the case of demerger in the instructions regarding implementation of the policy relied upon by the appellant.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
The seminal question involved in the present appeal is if the original lessee respondent No.1, a public limited companypany in respect of the plot given on lease by the appellant, Signature Not Verified transfers the same to another public limited companypany, albeit Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date 2019.04.24 173350 IST Reason an alter ego of the former, companysequent to an order of arrangement and demerger passed by the Company Judge, then whether it is liable to pay 50 unearned increase UEI on the market value of the plot to the appellant lessor ?
Briefly stated, in an auction companyducted by the appellant, respondent No.1 former name Jindal Strips Limited was allotted a companymercial plot in Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, on 23rd March, 1993.
According to the appellant, clause 6 a of the Lease Deed uses the expansive expression sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the companymercial plot.
Further, it wrongly applied clause 1 b , which relates to companyversion of a partnership firm into a private limited companypany, to the present case, which was admittedly a demerger of a public limited companypany lessee .
The impugned demand dated August 05, 2010 and the numberice dated January 13, 2011 are quashed.
