words per minute
77
mazhar_khan
00:00
Speed
In the Company Court under Section 446(2) is limited to entertain suits and claims in respect of the Company in liquidation. The intention of the legislature while incorporating the said action was to save the Company which is ordered to be wound up, from the expansive litigation and accelerate disposal of the winding up proceedings. As no relief is sought by or against the Company in liquidation, the applications are misconceived and deserve to be rejected. The second objection raised by counsel for the respondents- tenants is in the light of the provisions contained in the Rent Control Act, 2001 claiming that the dispute between the parties is governed there under and the issue relating to tenancy, sub- tenancy and recovery of possession being question of facts which are disputable, in view of Section 18 of the said Act, the exclusive jurisdiction would lie to the Rent Tribunal to decide the matters relating to tenancy. It is, therefore, submitted that a regular suit ought to have been preferred by the applicant for the purpose of possession of the property which has been rented out. It is further submitted that the said property was in tenancy with the respondents-tenants since ages and even prior to the property being leased out to the Company in liquidation i.e. prior to 1943. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in the case of Avtar Chawla Vs. Sehgal papers Ltd. and another judgment in the case of Dr. SP Bhargava Vs. Haryana Electric Steel Co. Company Cases 867. The further objection relating to maintainability is on the ground that once symbolic possession has already been delivered, fresh application for possession would not lie. It is submitted that admittedly symbolic possession had been handed over by the Company in liquidation to the Old Company on 24/02/1998. As such, the application under Section 446 read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not maintainable. The only remedy available to the applicant was of instituting a fresh suit for ejectment/eviction. It is further submitted that obtaining the symbolic possession under the law is equivalent to obtaining actual physical possession.