2012 (8) TMI 759

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the Schedule herein and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule Premises). 2. The respondent company is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 16.09.2003 having its registered office at No. 135, Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli, Marathahalli Junction, Bangalore - 560 037. The respondent company is promoted and incorporated for running enterprise called "Innovative Film City" comprising of film studios, film institute and hostel, entertainment plaza, retail high street and etc. 3. The petitioner has entered into Property Management Agreements dated 25.8.2008 (hereinafter referred to as Property Management Agreements) with M/s. Innovative Studios Private Limited (M/s. ISPL), M/s. Property Management Company (M/s. IPMC), a property ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpany Law Board in COP No. 65/2009 is relevant as the petitioner's title to the schedule property is accepted by the first respondent. It is submitted that in terms of the Compromise Petition, the respondent-company agreed to pay at the reduced rate of Rs. 50A per sq. ft. In spite of which, the respondent-company has not even paid this amount as stood in terms of the Compromise Petition before the Company Law Board. Hence, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 07.08.2010 wherein the first respondent replied to the same on 17.08.2010 and on 18.08.2010. The copy of the legal notice dated 07.08.2010, the reply notice caused by the first respondent dated 17.08.2010 and the reply notice dated 18.08.2010 issued by M/s. Innovative Property Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he said payment has not been made Hence, the entire case of the petitioner rests on the Compromise Petition. 8. The respondent-company in the statement of objections denied the fact that the rents were due and that no amount is payable to the petitioner. The company is solvent company. That the Company Petition has been filed without any basis. That the petitioners suppressed the fact that he once again filed a COP No. 81/2010 alleging oppression and mismanagement. During those proceedings, the respondent agreed to buy the shares of the petitioner's son and in pursuance whereof, the valuation of the shares being carried out in pursuance of the orders of the Company Law Board. It is submitted at the Bar that the valuation is completed and....