Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1992 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (2) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURTWhether the sub-tenancy is true? Whether it is valid in law? Whether the consent of the landlord is true and valid? Held that:- The directions made by the Division Bench were not really warranted at this stage. The said directions have the effect of dispossessing the appellant from the said premises at an interlocutory stage. The character of her possession has also been altered—she is now permitted to be in occupation of a portion of the flat as the agent of the liquidator. These directions, in our opinion, were not really warranted, at any rate, at this stage of the proceedings, when the rights of the appellant are yet to be adjudicated upon. One important circumstance which was not present before the Division Bench and which has been brought to our notice is the consent of the landlord to the sub-tenancy in her favour. Thus direct the appellant to furnish security in a sum of ₹ 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.
|