TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the company's objections regarding maintenance charges, municipal tax, and commercial surcharge under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1977 constituted an arguable defence so as to defeat a winding up petition; (ii) whether the admitted arrears of rent justified admission of the winding up petition.
Issue (i): Whether the company's objections regarding maintenance charges, municipal tax, and commercial surcharge under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1977 constituted an arguable defence so as to defeat a winding up petition.
Analysis: The claim for enhanced rent was not pressed. The remaining claims under section 5(7) and section 5(8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1977, and the objection based on section 3(f)(i), raised questions requiring interpretation of the agreement and the statutory scheme. The company's defence was not shown to be sham or moonshine. In a winding up proceeding founded on inability to pay debts, if the company discloses a plausible defence in law or on facts, the company court does not assume inability to pay.
Conclusion: The defence on the disputed heads was accepted as arguable, and those claims were left to be tested elsewhere.
Issue (ii): Whether the admitted arrears of rent justified admission of the winding up petition.
Analysis: The company admitted liability for rent for the months of April to September 1999 in the sum of Rs. 54,000 and offered payment of that amount with interest. The existence of deposits with the Rent Controller did not negate the fact that the admitted dues remained secured and payable. On that basis, the petition was confined to the admitted debt.
Conclusion: The winding up petition was admitted for Rs. 54,000 with interest, and the company was given time to pay failing which the petition was to be advertised.
Final Conclusion: The decision left the disputed statutory claims open for adjudication elsewhere, but proceeded on the admitted rent liability for purposes of winding up, subject to the company's right to avoid advertisement by timely payment.
Ratio Decidendi: In a winding up petition for inability to pay debts, a company is not to be treated as unable to pay where it raises a bona fide and arguable defence to disputed claims, but the petition may still be admitted on the basis of an admitted debt.
TaxTMI 
