Devinder Kumar Bajaj And Ors. vs Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.
2000 Latest Caselaw 1086 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This is an application filed by the Defendant under Section 442 of the Companies Act for the stay of proceedings. It is predicated on the fact that a winding up petition had been admitted and citation has also been issued. The winding up petition, however, was filed on 30th January, 1997. Even if this contention of the Defendant was otherwise well-founded it ought to have approached the Court with expedition, and certainly within a period of three years of the relevant event. This has not been done and accordingly the application can be dismissed on this short point. However, my attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Official Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd., , in which it has been observed that the passing of orders staying proceedings should not be carried out in a mechanical manner. The Apex Court specifically enjoined that if it appears to the Court that the application had been filed with the intention of the delaying the proceedings, it should not be permitted. Learned counsel has also relied on Basumati Mahajan v. Foremost Industries India Ltd., where, following the previous decision including Smt. Nirmala R. Bafna/Kershi Shivax Cambatta and Ors. v. Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr./official Liquidator and Ors., , Hon'ble Justice K. Ramamoorthy had held that Sections 442 and 446 would not be attracted where the tenancy rights of a company involved in liquidation were concerned. He has also relied on Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Kidarsons Industries P. Ltd. an Ors., 1998 III AD (Delhi) 27, to the effect that since subletting is not permissible, even in view of the Rent Control legislation, tenancy rights would not be assets of a company which required protection even in the currency of the winding up proceedings. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff had submitted that where, as in the present case, no statutory protection was available to the company viz-a-viz the tenancy, there would be no question of the tenancy constituting an asset of the company.

2. For all these reasons I am satisfied that the application is without merit and is dismissed.

3. There shall be no orders as to costs.

Suit No. 1218/1993

Refortify on 21st November, 2000 in the category of short-matters.