Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a rehabilitation-cum-amalgamation scheme sanctioned under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 overrides the lessor's contractual right under a perpetual lease deed to recover unearned increase on transfer or vesting of the leased property.
Analysis: The scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was sanctioned in respect of the transferor-company's undertaking, but the lessor was not a party to the BIFR proceedings. Section 32 gives overriding effect to the Act, its rules and schemes only against inconsistency with other laws or instruments having statutory force; it does not displace contractual obligations contained in a lease deed. The lease deed expressly entitled the lessor to recover fifty per cent of the unearned increase on transfer, and the property remained owned by the lessor. The amalgamation scheme could not alter the lessor's rights or confer ownership of the leased land on the transferee-company.
Conclusion: The demand for unearned increase was valid and was not barred by Section 32 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 32 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 overrides inconsistent laws and statutory instruments, but it does not override contractual terms in a perpetual lease deed so as to defeat the lessor's right to recover unearned increase.