TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (8) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am Lal Anand was bound to hand over vacant possession of bungalow No. 88, Sundar Nagar, as it belonged to the company. He was also to hand over fixtures and furniture. It is said that Anand handed over vacant possession of the bungalow to the directors of the company at one time. The directors started letting out the building during the period when it was in the possession of the company. But when the present chairman Mr. K. K. Mehra took charge he found that Anand had once more taken illegal possession of the property in October, 1955 and since then he has continued to be in its unlawful occupation. It is then said that by reason of Anand's illegal occupation from October, 1971 onwards a sum of ₹ 2,94,000 has become due to the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that : 1. Anand is not the owner of the property. The company is the owner. 2. That Anand is entitled to get ₹ 2,05,000 from the company. 3. That the property is liable to be sold in public auction at the instance of the Bank of Baroda, a secured creditor, in terms of the scheme sanctioned by Shanker J. on May 10,1968. (6) If Anand agreed to hand over vacant possession he cannot now remain in occupation. This is part of the scheme. The court can enforce the scheme under s. 392. This is what the court is asked to do. (7) Mr. R. M. Lal on behalf of Anand argued that there cannot be any order against Anand for delivering the possession till he is paid ₹ 2.05,000 by the company. For his submission he relies strongly on the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....what right ? Suppose he did not hand over possession in the past. Can he retain it in the present ? I think not. All that he can argue is that he has not been paid ₹ 2,05,000. But now there is an order by the court for payment to him. On the construction of clause 4 it is impossible to resist the claim of the company for possession. It is worthy of note that Anand had agreed to hand over vacant possession and fixtures and furniture therein to the company "forthwith". As the division bench said : "The word "forthwith" has a significance of its own, which cannot be overlooked. The agreement by the company to pay ₹ 2,05,000 was not for any payment forthwith". (11) Therefore, Anand cannot say : "....