Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2021 (1) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 114 - Tri - Companies LawPrayer to declare the Lease Agreement as null and void, directing the respondents not to give effect to the lease deed dated 03.12.2019 - Section 167 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The petitioners fails to convince us that petitioners have prima facie case and the balance of conveyance also lies in favor of the petitioners and the irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioners rather we are of the view that at the time of filing of this application, the possession was with the R-1 Company, thereafter, during the pendency of this application registered lease deed was executed on 29th June 2020 and on the basis of that R-5 claimed that they came into the possession over the land from 01/12/2019, which is also not liable to be accepted because a lease deed shall not be executed and registered from the retrospective effect and on the basis of that a person cannot claim his possession from the retrospective effect. Therefore, the decisions upon which the petitioners and respondents placed reliance under the facts and circumstances of the case are not applicable. Section 52 of TP Act, which says that during the pendency of the suit or proceedings no new thing could be introduced, we shall consider this at the time of final hearing but at this juncture, we came to a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out by the petitioners, the balance of conveyance is also not in favor of petitioners and no irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioners, therefore, we are not inclined to grant any interim relief to the petitioners. Hence prayer of the petitioners to grant interim relief is hereby rejected. In which the respondent No. 2 to 7 acted and got the lease deed executed and registered for 29 years whereas the unregistered lease deed was for five years that compelled us to form an opinion that act of respondents No. 2 to 7 are prejudicial to the interest of R-l company and in order to protect the interest of R-l Company, it is necessary to pass the following order that on the basis of the unregistered lease deed dt 03/12/2019 and Registered lease deed dt. 29/06/2020 no construction work shall be done and no new thing shall be installed over the land in question by the R-5 or by any other persons on or their behalf and the possession shall remain with the Respondent no 1 company during the pendency of this application and neither respondent No. 2 to 7 nor the petitioners shall interfere with the possession of the R-l company. List the case on 19/08/2020 for filing the reply to the main application on behalf of respondents.
|