TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (3) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember, 1972, the official liquidator, upon the directions of the company judge, granted to the respondent leave and licence to use the greater part of the said premises (hereinafter called "the licensed premises") for industrial and commercial purposes, including warehousing and storage of goods belonging to her and to her customers and clients and for ancillary purposes. The agreement was for 5 years. On 27th June, 1977, after the company court's directions had been obtained, a fresh agreement was entered into between the official liquidator and the respondent in similar terms. Clauses 6, 9, 14, 18 and 20 of the said agreements read as under : "6. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause No. 5 of the agreement, the licensor may termi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....premises and without prejudice to all their other rights the licensor, his servants and authorised agents shall be entitled to break open all or any locks or locking or barring devices whatsoever in or outside the said premises employed authorisedly or otherwise and/or to physically remove from the said premises the licensee her servants and agents and all persons claiming through or under and in like manner to remove deal with or dispose of all or any property belonging to the licensee her servants and agents or any other person or persons claiming through or under her as to the licensor may seem expedient or necessary. . . . . . . 14. The official liquidator being liquidator of the said company has been given sanction by the Hon'ble High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uidator and the licensee or about the interpretation of these terms and conditions or incidental or in any-wise relating thereto the same will be referred to the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court at Bombay taking company matters whose decision shall be binding on both the official liquidator and the licensee." On 21st December, 1972, in respect of the earlier agreement and on 27th June, 1977, in respect of the later agreement, the respondent gave undertakings to the court that she would not transfer her possession as licensee and the rights and benefits which she held under the agreements and that she would observe and comply with her obligations thereunder. In the judge's summons before me, the applicants pray that the official liquidator ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the respondent deal with paras. 12 and 13 of the affidavit-in-support. In these paragraphs there is no denial whatsoever of the allegation that a motor garage is being conducted in the licensed premises, and that one shed has been given to Haryana Breweries Ltd. and another shed to Narendra & Company ; nor have the photographs been referred to, although I was fairly told by Mr. Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondent, that they had been inspected by the respondent. No explanation has been given about the motor garage, Haryana Breweries and Narendra and Co. In so far as the motor garage was concerned, Mr. Kapadia stated that the respondents had not seen the visiting card because it had not been disclosed. He stated that since 1973 the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am not satisfied with any of these explanations. It seems to me patent that to accommodate in the said premises each of the three parties, viz., the firm conducting the motor garage, Haryana Breweries Ltd. and Narendra & Co., a camouflage has been resorted to. It does not seem reasonable that Haryana Breweries should be permitted to paint their name all over the front of one shed of the licensed premises if all that is happening is that their goods are being warehoused in the licensed premises by the respondent. This is more consonant with reason if the respondent has given over the use of the particular shed to Haryana Breweries Ltd., and to that specific allegation in the affidavit-in-support of the judge's summons there is no denial by ....