TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (3) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which had been granted on lease to the company, being the arrears of rent from June, 1989, to July, 1992. In addition to the arrears of rent a sum of Rs. 2,024.70 has been claimed by way of municipal taxes due and payable in respect of the demised flats and a further sum of Rs. 455 for water and electricity consumption charges, thus making a sum in an amount of Rs. 39,529.70. In Company Petition No. 17N of 1992, the petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 20,081.20 as follows: Rs. Arrears of rent from June, 1989, to July, 1992, being 19,760.00 By way of municipal taxes 1,250.20 For water and electricity consumption 106.00 The claim is for arrears of rent in respect of flat No. 7 which was let out to the company in the same buildin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irs from time-to-time in respect of the demised flats. The same is the stand now taken up in opposing the present winding up proceedings. The company in their affidavit filed through one of its officers have also mentioned that before the Controller passed any order directing their eviction under section 32(4) an agreement was reached on behalf of the company on one side and the petitioner on the other, that the company would not contest the proceedings of eviction and there would be adjustment of the arrears of rent as against the claim for expenses towards the maintenance and repairs made by the company from time to time. It was urged on behalf of the company by Shri Kavlekar, learned counsel, that the present petition is nothing but pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars and continue to pay the rent falling due from month to month in terms of section 32 of the Rent Control Act read with rule 5 of the rules. However, what is relevant to see is that there is no whisper that the company had ever expended any money in the matter of keeping the premises in tenantable repairs. That apart, there is no correspondence whatsoever between the parties to suggest that there was any authority for such action. For the first time, a sort of counter-claim was made when the petitioner issued a notice under section 438 of the Companies Act, 1956, and, for that matter, when defences were filed in the present cases opposing the winding up. Prima facie what is due and payable to the petitioner indeed cannot be disputed as it....