Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2011 (8) TMI 970 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Trust ordered to vacate property, lease agreement deemed invalid. Damages awarded, new auction ordered. The court directed the appellant, a trust running a Teachers' Training Institute, to hand over vacant possession of the property to the official ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Trust ordered to vacate property, lease agreement deemed invalid. Damages awarded, new auction ordered.

                          The court directed the appellant, a trust running a Teachers' Training Institute, to hand over vacant possession of the property to the official liquidator. The court found the lease agreement heavily tilted in favor of the lessee, deeming it invalid. The appellant was ordered to pay damages for use and occupation, and a fresh auction was ordered due to the highest bidder's failure to pay the balance. The court emphasized protecting the interests of secured creditors and employees. The appeal was dismissed, and specific directions were given for the payment of damages and the conduct of a new auction.




                          Issues Involved:

                          1. Legality of the direction to hand over vacant possession of the property.
                          2. Validity of the lease agreement under Section 531A of the Companies Act, 1956.
                          3. Entitlement to damages for use and occupation of the property.
                          4. Validity of the auction sale and forfeiture of earnest money deposit.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          Issue 1: Legality of the direction to hand over vacant possession of the property

                          The appellant, a trust running a Teachers' Training Institute, was directed by the court to hand over vacant possession of the property to the official liquidator. The appellant contended that as a lawful tenant, it could not be evicted except under due process of law. The court noted that the appellant participated in the auction and was aware of the sale proceedings. The court found the lease terms to be heavily tilted in favor of the lessee, raising doubts about the lease deed. The court concluded that the lease agreement did not confer any right upon the appellant and directed the appellant to hand over the property by July 2008.

                          Issue 2: Validity of the lease agreement under Section 531A of the Companies Act, 1956

                          The court examined the lease agreements dated January 22, 2000, and December 22, 2000. The second lease, being within one year prior to the winding-up petition, was scrutinized under Section 531A of the Companies Act, which renders such transfers void against the liquidator if not made in the ordinary course of business or in good faith. The court found the lease terms suspicious, given the meagre rent and the unregistered nature of the long-term lease. The court concluded that the lease was intended to deny assets to secured creditors and was void under Section 531A.

                          Issue 3: Entitlement to damages for use and occupation of the property

                          The court observed that the appellant had been in possession of a large property for a nominal rent and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,000 per month as damages for use and occupation from July 2008 to September 2011. The court emphasized that the appellant's payment to the official liquidator was towards damages, not rent, and did not confer any tenancy rights. The court granted the appellant time until September 30, 2011, to vacate and hand over possession, failing which the official liquidator could take immediate possession.

                          Issue 4: Validity of the auction sale and forfeiture of earnest money deposit

                          The ninth respondent, the highest bidder in the auction, failed to pay the balance sale consideration. The court noted that the stay order did not excuse the respondent's failure to pay. The court set aside the auction sale and ordered a fresh auction to be conducted within three months, fixing the upset price at the present market value. The earnest money deposit paid by the ninth respondent was not to be refunded until the completion of the fresh auction, after which the respondent could seek its return.

                          Conclusion:

                          The court dismissed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal and directed the appellant to pay damages for use and occupation. The auction sale was set aside, and a fresh auction was ordered. The court emphasized the need to protect the interests of the company's secured creditors and employees, ensuring the assets secured the best price. The appeal was disposed of with specific directions regarding the payment of damages and the conduct of a fresh auction.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found