TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant's Failure to Pay Rent Leads to Upheld Payment Direction</h1> <h3>Value Source Mercantile Ltd. Versus Span Mechnotronix Ltd.</h3> Value Source Mercantile Ltd. Versus Span Mechnotronix Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding the issuance of directions for payment in a proceeding under the Act.2. Whether the Court has the power to issue directions for payment of rent in a Section 9 proceeding.3. Application of Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC in directing payment during the pendency of a suit.4. Consideration of the appellant's conduct in failing to pay rent and vacating the leased premises.5. Analysis of the legal implications of terminating part of the leased premises while continuing to occupy the rest.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking payment of dues and possession of leased premises. The appellant stopped paying rent, leading to the respondent filing a petition for payment and possession based on the arbitration clause in the Lease Deed.2. The Single Judge directed the appellant to pay arrears of rent and continue monthly payments in advance. The appellant vacated the premises during the appeal, leaving only the issue of payment due. The appellant contended that such payment directions were beyond the scope of a Section 9 proceeding.3. The Court examined the powers under Section 9, emphasizing 'interim measures of protection.' The appellant's liability for rent of one office unit was admitted, justifying a payment direction. The Court compared this to Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC and Order XV-A, enabling payment directions even for disputed amounts.4. The appellant's conduct in not paying rent and terminating part of the leased premises was questioned. The Court noted the appellant's failure to provide a valid defense or reason for non-payment, highlighting the need for compliance with court orders.5. The Court addressed the legality of terminating part of the leased premises while continuing to occupy the rest. It found such action vexatious and not in line with the terms of the tenancy, justifying the payment direction issued under Section 9. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the payment direction and imposing costs on the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
