SIMPLEX MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD Vs. HINDUSTAN TOOLS MFG CO LTD
LAWS(P&H)-1959-9-17
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 23,1959

SIMPLEX MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
HINDUSTAN TOOLS MFG. CO. LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is a petition of the Simplex Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited under section 528 and 529 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying that the claim of the Company for Rs. 76,032/9/9 plus interest may be admitted by this Court and the Official Liquidator of the Hindustan Tools Manufacturing Company Limited (in liquidation) be directed to pay damages for use and occupation of the petitioner's buildings from 1-10-1956, to the date the premises are vacated and the plant, machinery and equipment of the petitioner-Company are handed over to it. The petition for the winding up of the Hinudstan Tool Manufacturing Company was presented on 26-5-1955, and the winding up order was passed on 6-71955. The premises of the Simplex Manufacturing Company were first leasd to the Hindustan Company complete with foundry, machinery, plant and equipment for a period of three months from 2-5-1946 to 1-8-1946, for a total rent of Rs. 1,200/-. These premises were again taken on rent at a rate of Rs. 200 per mensem between 3-8-1946, and 2-11-1946. On the third occasion the Hindustan Company took these premises on lease from 17-1-1947, till 31-12-1947, for a period of less than one year. The rent which was payable up to the end of March, 1947 was fixed at Rs. 600/-and from April, 1947, onwards a sum of Rs. 225 per mensem was payable as rent. This lease was again renewed from 1-1-1948 up to 31-12-1948.
(2.) On 29-11-1948, Simplex Company served a notice, vide Exhibit O.W.1/12, upon the Hindustan Company desiring that the premises be vacated. There was a considerable correspondence between the parties on the question whether the premises were liable to be vacated but the correspondence did not culminate in any agreement and no steps were taken by either party and the matter in controversy was not taken by either party to a Court of law. It is contended by the Simplex Company and there is no denial by the Company in liquidation, that during the years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952 the Hindustan Company used to supply casting to the Simplex Company. The amount due to the Hindustan Company on account o f the castings supplied used to be adjusted against the rent payable to the Simplex Company. In the financial year ending 31st March, 1949, the Hindustan Company had supplied castings to the Simplex Company of the value of Rs. 861/13/3 in excess of the amounts debited to the Hindustan Company. It is now contended that after giving credit for all sums received and value of materials supplied by the Hindustan Company, a sum of Rs. 17,384-9-9 exclusive of interest is due to the Simplex Company on account of unpaid rent and electric charges up to 31-10-1956, as borne out by statements produced by the Simplex Company, Exhibits O.W.1/34 to O.W.1/43. The Simplex Company gave a notice to the Hindustan Company to vacate the premises by 1-4-1949, but there was no compliance with the notice. The amount of damages which is claimed for use and occupation of the premises after the notice, is assessed at Rs. 58,639/-. The Simplex Company submitted the above claim to the Official Liquidator of the Company but the same was not admitted and hence the present petition before this Court.
(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the Hindustan Company, the above factual allegations in the main were admitted but a better statement was filed later in which the Hindustan Company took up a different position. It was stated on behalf of the Hindustan Company that it paid to the Simplex Company a sum of Rs. 5,619/2/6 in cash or by cheques and supplied goods worth Rs. 5,890/12/9, and thus paid in all Rs. 11,509-15-3 to the Simplex Company. The claim of the Simplex Company was denied and it was contended that it could not make a demand for rent in excess of the standard rent of the premises. It was contended that the Simplex Company was paying Rs. 28/8/ as rent or compensation for use and occupation of these premises to the landlord and it could not claim at a higher rate from the Hindustan Company. It was contended that the claim of the Simplex Company for the period prior to 26-5-1952, i.e., beyond three years from the date of the petition of winding up was barred by time. It was also maintained that as the premises had been acquired by the Delhi Town Improvement Trust, nothing was payable to Simplex Company after the date of acquisition. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the claim of Simplex Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited is within time ? 2. What is the effect of the acquisition of the premises by Delhi Town Improvement Trust ? 3. To what amount is the claimant entitled ?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.