Court admits winding-up petition for non-payment of rent & maintenance charges under Companies Act. Respondent's defenses rejected.

The Court admitted the winding-up petition under Sections 433(e) and 433(f) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by the petitioner against the respondent-company for non-payment of rent and maintenance charges. The Court rejected the respondent's defenses, emphasizing their acknowledgment of the rent amount and lack of denial regarding payment terms. The respondent's argument on premises' maintenance issues was dismissed, and the Court upheld the petitioner's claims, scheduling further proceedings for September 13, 2013.

---

---

Issues:
- Petition filed under Section 433(e) and 433(f) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent-company.
- Dispute regarding non-payment of rent and maintenance charges by the respondent-company.
- Defense raised by the respondent regarding lack of proper repair and maintenance of the premises.
- Argument by the respondent that the unregistered lease deed cannot be considered for ascertaining rent payable.
- Examination of evidence and admissions regarding rent payment in the legal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a winding-up petition under Sections 433(e) and 433(f) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking to wind up the respondent-company due to non-payment of rent and maintenance charges.
2. The respondent-company leased premises but failed to pay the full rent and maintenance charges, leading to arrears amounting to Rs. 20,44,500, excluding electricity charges.
3. Despite receiving a notice to clear arrears within 21 days, the respondent did not comply, prompting the petitioner to file the winding-up petition.
4. The respondent raised a defense claiming lack of proper repair and maintenance of the premises, questioning the justification for paying full rent.
5. The respondent argued that the unregistered lease deed should not be considered for determining rent payable, citing a judgment supporting this stance.
6. The petitioner contended that the respondent's admission of the rent amount in legal notices and replies, despite the unregistered lease deed, validated the claim for winding up.
7. The Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing the respondent's acknowledgment of the rent amount and lack of denial regarding rent payment terms.
8. The respondent's defense of premises' maintenance issues was dismissed as routine matters not justifying non-payment of rent, especially since the respondent vacated the property under court orders.
9. The Court distinguished a previous judgment on liquidated damages, affirming that the respondent's admission of the rent amount sufficed for the winding-up petition.
10. Consequently, the Court admitted the petition, listing it for further proceedings on 13th September, 2013, rejecting the respondent's defenses and upholding the petitioner's claims.

---