TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For The Respondent : Ms. Prachi Wazalwar, Adv. And Mr. Navneet Rao, Adv. ORDER It is a Company Petition filed on 22.03.2018 by an individual Mr. Nandlal Girdhar Popat residing at Jatpura, Chandrapur Tah. Dist., Chandrapur, Maharashtra, as Operational Creditor, u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor viz. Samadhan Marketing and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at Nand Niwas , Near Jatpura Gate, City Bazar Complex, Chandrapur, Maharashtra for a claimed Operational Debt of ₹2,81,250/-. Since the Corporate Debtor is defaulted in making monthly payment by honouring post dated chques since 06.10.2017, the Petitioner sent a demand notice on 22.02.2018 u/s 8 of IBC to the Corporate Debtor. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to make payment of the said debt amount, hence, the Petitioner has filed this Petition to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor on the ground that this Corporate Debtor failed to pay the total outstanding debt of ₹2,81,250/-. 2. The Petitioner has submitted Form-5 along with the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith his other family members viz. (i)Mrs. Heena Dayalal Popat, (ii)Mrs. Hansa Nandlal Popat, (iii)Mr. Dayalal Girdhar Popat, (iv)Mr. Nandlal Girdhar Popat, (v)Mr. Dayalal Girdhar Popat (HUF), (vi)Mr. Ghanshyam Nandlal Popat (HUF), (vii)Mr. Karthik Nandlal Popat (HUF), leased their property at Nand Niwas , Chandrapur, to M/s. Samadhan Marketing and Merchanidse Pvt. Ltd. for an agreed amount of rent of ₹ 1,25,000/- per month payable to the Lessors/owners as below:- # Name Amount (Rs.) 1. Mr. Heena Dayalal Popat 45,114.00 2. Mrs. Hansa Nandlal Popat 28,232.00 3. Ghanshyam Nandlal Popat 3,795.00 4. Karthik Nandlal Popat 3,795.00 5. Dayalal Girdhar Popat (HUF) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that of the compensation to two ex-directors, one of whom is the Petitioner herein. The Corporate Debtor further stated that prior to the Lease Deed, the Petitioner others and the Respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), however, no copy provided by the Respondent. The Corporate Debtor further stated that the Petitioner and others (Lessor) have failed to fulfil their obligations and representations in terms of the said Lease Deed and therefore, the Respondent was left with no option but to seek legal remedy against the Petitioner and others. Therefore, filed a Civil Suit titled R.C.S. No. 98 of 2017 before the Hon ble Civil Judge Junior Division 9 Court, Chandrapur on 02.05.2017, copy of which is annexed to the written submission. 10. The Corporate Debtor further states that as a consequence of the above Civil Suit, the Ld. Judge while considering interim application, mentioned that the plaintiff (i.e. Respondent/Corporate Debtor herein) always has the remedy to instruct the bank to stop payment of cheques. Accordingly, the alleged payments to the Petitioner were withheld for want of performance of obligations in terms of said Lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property in question but it was a compensation for the services of the Petitioner. It is also clarified that no separate agreement deed was executed but the condition of payment of compensation has also been incorporated in that very Lease Deed . 14. The Petitioner may or may not be landlord but the amount payable to him is not titled as rent whereas it is a compensation payable to him for the services rendered to the company in the past, which falls within the category of Royalty payment. It has nothing to do the rent payment. 15. The Corporate Debtor alleged that the company incurred heavy loss due to a fire in the building, which damaged the premises as well as goods kept in the premises. The Corporate Debtor further alleged that the Petitioner being the landlord was not doing any maintenance as the same is required to run the business in the damaged premises. Since no service forthcoming from the landlords, it filed a civil suit against the landlords including the Petitioner herein. The Corporate Debtor states that the Ld. Judge directed the Corporate Debtor to stop payment of the PDCs given to the landlord and accordingly the Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease dated 13.10.2016. c) By decree of mandatory injunction the defendants may be directed to immediately provide uninterrupted water supply to plaintiff shop and cooling system, to carry out the repairs to stop all leakages and seepages from roof and walls of the tenanted premises and to carry out all the repairs of walls, slab and projection which is damage from fire. d) The cost of the suit may kindly be saddle on the defendants. e) Grant any other relief which this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. It is evident from the above that the Respondent Debtor has filed a Civil Suit on 02.05.2019 but it has no correlation to the claim amount of the Petitioner as the same is totally different from the Rent amount. The Bench observed that the Petitioner has not claimed anything related to balance rent amount and hence, the dispute on rent will not apply to the payment of Royalty , which is demanded through the Demand Notice dated 22.02.2018. Therefore, it is clear that there is no existence of dispute vis- -vis amount claimed as Royalty payment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
