TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1935 (3) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... giving three months' notice at the appropriate time, to reduce the period of the lease to five years. The rent was paid up to the end of March 1934, and on 30th June 1934, a resolution was passed by the Company for its being voluntarily wound up. A Mr. Arora was appointed liquidator but he died, and in his place Mr. Akhtar Husain, an advocate of this Court, was appointed, and he is still acting as liquidator. The assets were sold to Mr. Shaukat Ali in December 1934. and he now occupies the premises, with effect from 1st January 1935, on the same rent as that previously paid by Messrs. Peake Allen & Company. The original contention on behalf of the appellants was that they were entitled to the payment of the full rent that fell due after 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, a lessor is for many purposes as independent person. His rights ought not to be interfered with more than is necessary, by reason of his lessee having become insolvent, and having chosen (to use the Lord Justice's expression) to have a winding up." Later on it was said, at p. 652: "A mortgagee and a lessor, although in one sense independent persons, are nevertheless creditors of the company in respect of any amount due on the mortgage or on the lease at the date of the winding up, and as such creditors, they ought, in my judgment, to have neither preference nor priority. In respect of any rights arising after the winding up by reason of the company or the liquidators remaining in possession of the demised or of the mortgaged premises....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be regarded as an asset of the company, but it was an asset which carried with it the liability to pay Rs. 500 a month, and it is impossible to divorce the asset from the liability. There can be no doubt that the consistent trend of the English decisions is in accordance with the contention now raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, and in the absence of anything in the Indian Companies Act that is in conflict with the English principle, we think that we ought to adopt that principle. We accordingly direct that as regards the amount that fell due for the months of April, May and June 1934, the appellants will be on the same footing as other creditors and will be entitled only to rateable distribution out of the realisations made ....