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>Landlord's Claim for Preferential Payment Dismissed in Company Winding-Up Case</h1> <h3>DD. Italia Versus Free Press Journals (Madras) Ltd.</h3> The court dismissed Dinroze Estate's claim for preferential payment of rent arrears in a company winding-up case. The judgment emphasized that specific ... Winding up – Application of insolvency rules and Preferential payments Issues:1. Priority of rent payment to landlord in a company winding-up process.2. Interpretation of section 229 of the Indian Companies Act and its relation to section 49 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.3. Application of specific provisions in the Companies Act over general provisions in the Insolvency Act.4. Consideration of landlord's claim for priority due to premises being in custodia legis.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a winding-up application of a company where the issue of priority in rent payment to the landlord arises. The landlord, Dinroze Estate, filed a claim for rent arrears against the company, seeking a preferential payment of Rs. 1,281 over other creditors. The landlord argued that the claim acquired priority due to the premises being sealed by court order, placing it in custodia legis.The legal argument centered around the interpretation of section 229 of the Indian Companies Act in relation to section 49 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The applicant contended that section 229 allowed for the application of section 49, which prioritizes rent due to a landlord, up to one month's rent. However, the judgment rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Companies Act, specifically section 230, comprehensively addresses various categories of claims, including debts due to the government, salary payments, and landlord rights.The judgment highlighted that when specific provisions exist in an enactment, such as the Companies Act, general rules from another act should not be invoked. It underscored the importance of reading all sections of an enactment in harmony and not disturbing the prioritization framework established within the Companies Act. Importing provisions from the Insolvency Act would disrupt the equal ranking of debts as outlined in the Companies Act.Furthermore, the judgment addressed the landlord's claim based on the property being in custodia legis. It clarified that the mere custody of property by law does not confer priority to landlords in a winding-up scenario. The law maintains impartiality in holding the property for the benefit of all entitled parties, without granting landlords preferential treatment.Ultimately, the application by the Dinroze Estate for a further sum of Rs. 1,281 as preferential payment was dismissed by the court. The judgment concluded that the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, including section 49 related to landlord priority, could not be applied in the winding-up proceedings governed by the Companies Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
