TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (2) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ator was appointed as the liquidator for the company. The company was the tenant of a flat situated at Churchgate, Bombay. It is a fairly big flat having an area of 3,500 sq. ft. The company had its registered office in the said flat until it was shifted to Jalgaon some time prior to July, 1979. The appellant is the sister of one of the directors of the company. Her husband was the manager of the company. According to her, she entered into an agreement with the company on July 15, 1979, whereunder a sub-tenancy was created in her favour in respect of the said flat except for a small area of 150 sq. ft. which was retained by the company. According to her, the landlord had orally consented to the creation of the sub-tenancy in her favour. The rent for the flat payable to the landlord was Rs. 900 per month. Under the said agreement, the appellant was to pay Rs. 600 every month to the company. She says further that she was put in possession of the said portion on the date of agreement and has continued in possession ever since. The liquidator appointed by the court for the company took possession of the entire flat in October, 1984. He sealed it. Against the order of winding up date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f section 446 for transfer of the said suit to the High Court to be tried by the company judge, and the application was registered as Company Application No. 141 of 1986. Both these applications came up before the company judge on August 20, 1986. In a short order, the learned judge dismissed the Company Application No. 38 of 1986 observing that: "the suit instituted by the applicant after the winding up order is collusive and the claim is dishonest. The appellant is a sister of one of the directors and claims to have tenancy rights in respect of a portion of the company's office. I am not satisfied that the claim even requires an investigation. P.C. Judges summons dismissed." No orders were passed on Company Application No. 141 of 1986, presumably because Company Application No. 38 of 1986 was dismissed. On August 22, 1986, the official liquidator called upon the appellant to deliver possession of the premises in her possession. Upon the appellant's failure to comply with the said demand, the official liquidator obtained an order from the company court on August 27, 1986, empowering him to take possession of the said premises. The appellant says that, in pursuance of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7,500 per month. She will also deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000 with the official liquidator as security deposit. She will pay the monthly amounts on or before the 10th day of each month, starting from 10th September, 1986. She will deposit the sum of Rs. 15,000 on or before 10th October, 1986. In the event of her committing any default in the payment of the security amount or any two monthly amounts, the official liquidator to take possession of the premises in her occupation forthwith." It was made clear that "this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the said suit and is subject to the result of the said suit. It will also be open to the learned judge hearing the said suit to vary this order in the event of any change of circumstances or to pass any other appropriate interim order, as may be required." Sri Masodkar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Division Bench was in error in rejecting, on a mere presumption, the appellant's case that the landlord had consented to the sub-tenancy in her favour. The landlord himself has come forward with certain applications of his own wherein he has affirmed his oral consent to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e must refer to the stand taken by counsel for the landlord-trust. The two special leave petitions filed by the landlord-trust were posted and heard along with this special leave petition. Sri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the landlord-trust, stated before us that the trustees have indeed consented orally to the sub-tenancy agreement between the company and the appellants. We must say that this circumstance was not there before the Division Bench and evidently for this reason the Bench appears to have rejected the theory of consent of the landlord. We cannot, however, refuse to take notice of the said statement of counsel. We do so for the limited purpose of this appeal. From the facts narrated above, it would be evident that the rights of the appellant have to be adjudicated upon in the suit filed by her which is now transferred to the High Court with the consent of both the parties. Whether the sub-tenancy is true, whether it is valid in law and whether the consent of the landlord is true and valid are all questions which arise for decision in the suit. We cannot pronounce upon them at this stage. The only question for our consideration is whether the directions given by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and with a view to safeguard the rights of the company in the event of dismissal of the aforesaid suit, we direct the appellant to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the learned company judge of the Bombay High Court, within two months from today. The amount already deposited by the appellant in pursuance of the order under appeal shall continue to lie in court. The said amount and the security furnished by her in pursuance of this order shall be subject to the decision in the appellant's suit, now transferred to the Bombay High Court. We make it clear that this is only an interim arrangement pending the suit and shall not reflect upon or affect the merits of the suit or any of the rights and contentions of the parties. In case the appellant fails to furnish the security as directed herein within the time prescribed, the directions of the Division Bench will revive and come into operation forthwith. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15678 of 1990 and 16368 of 1990 : S.L.P. No. 16368 of 1990 is directed against the order da....