TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant to challenge the validity of the winding up order in the OL's Report. So far as the objection of Mr. Nedumpara that exclusive jurisdiction to decide the legality or otherwise of the purported lease agreement is with the Rent Courts constituted under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is concerned, the same is also without any substance. Firstly, the purported lease agreement is unregistered document. The document of lease is specifically required to be registered in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and section 17 read with 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Non compliance with these provisions, makes the document inadmissible in evidence and obviously the same cannot be relied upon. The docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor's Report No.5 of 2013. By the said order, the resubmitted OL's Report No.5 was allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) thereof. Consequently, the Ex-directors of the Company in Liquidation [Respondent Nos.1 2 herein] and M/s. German Ink Pvt. Limited [Respondent No.3 herein] have been directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the Official Liquidator. 2. The brief facts are thus : A] At the instance of International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd, [for short IARC ], by the order dated 15th June 2012, Phoenix Alchemy Pvt. Limited was ordered to be wound up under section 433(e) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. B] On 18th December 2012, the Official Liquidator filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it is a lease for a period of 21 years at a monthly rent of ₹ 5,000/-. The report also revealed that the purported lease is insufficiently stamped and the same is not registered. Consequently, directions were sought against Respondent No.3 to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the Official Liquidator. F] The learned Single Judge found that the Company in Liquidation and Respondent No.3 are the related entities. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the fact that period of the lease is 20 years and the rent is only ₹ 5,000/- per month, which is significantly lower than the market rate, concluded that the lease is not bonafide transaction and the same is executed in order to keep the premises out of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The lease deed in favour of M/s. German Ink Productions is insufficiently stamped and is not registered. It is not disputed that Respondent No.3 German Ink Productions India Pvt. Limited of which the Appellant is the director and the Company in Liquidation are the group companies or related entities. It is also not disputed that the Appellant is the son of the Ex-director of the Company in Liquidation. 6. If the area of the premises, the location of the building in which the premises is situated, the period of lease and paltry rent at which the premises are leased out are taken into consideration, the same create serious doubts about the bonafides of the transaction. We agree wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he objection of Mr. Nedumpara that exclusive jurisdiction to decide the legality or otherwise of the purported lease agreement is with the Rent Courts constituted under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is concerned, the same is also without any substance. Firstly, the purported lease agreement is unregistered document. The document of lease is specifically required to be registered in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and section 17 read with 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Non compliance with these provisions, makes the document inadmissible in evidence and obviously the same cannot be relied upon. The document of purported lease is, therefore, rightly ignored by the Company Court. For the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
