IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA O.S.A.Nos.16 & 17 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2010 Tan India Ltd., Wattle Extract Division and Textile Division,rep. By one of its Ex.Directors, M.S.Mathivanan, No.107, Kalaimagal street, Kumarapalayam - 638 183 Namakkal District ..Appellant in OSA.16/2010 Tan India Ltd., Wattle Extract Division and Textile Division, rep. by one of its Ex.Directors,M.S.Kumanan, No.107, Kalaimagal street, Kumarapalayam - 638 183 Namakkal District ..Appellant in OSA.17/2010 Vs. 1. P.Elango S/o S.S.M.Purushothamanan representing Cement and Sorbito Division, Tan India Ltd., No.10, 117, Kalaimagal Street, Kumarapalayam - 638 183 ..1st respondent in OSA.16/2010 & Namakkal District. 2nd respondent in OSA.17/2010 2. M/s. Sundaram Finance, No.21, Patulas Road, Chennai rep. By its General Manager (Legal) V.Sridharan ..2nd respondent in OSA.16/2010 & 1st respondent in OSA.17/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as the Liquidator of M/s. Tan India Ltd. (In Liquidation) ..3rd Respondent in both the OSAs. These appeals have been preferred under Order 36 Rule 11 of O.S.Rules read with under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the orders passed in Comp.Appln.Nos. 1696 and 1790 of 2009 in C.P.No.243 of 1997 dated 15.12.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. For Appellants : Mr.A.Palaniappan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Ravi Raja for R1 in OSA.16/2010 and R2 in OSA 17/2010 Mr.M.Kempraj for Administrator for R3 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) These intra-court appeals have been brought forth by the appellants challenging two orders of the learned single Judge, one made by the appellant seeking for modification of the interim order dated 29.6.2007 and the other, challenging the order whereby the application made by the opposite party seeking cancellation of the lease was allowed. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants , the learned senior counsel for the respondent/Caveator and also the learned counsel representing the Administrator. 3. After looking into the materials available and hearing the submissions made, the Court is of the considered opinion that the appeals do not require any admission in the hands of this Court. 4. In short, pending liquidation proceedings, the appellants were permitted to lease the textile and wattle units on payment of Rs.10 lakhs per month. It remains that the appellants agreed to make payment of the said amount of Rs.10 lakhs by way of lease rental per month. Only on their undertaking, they were permitted to be in possession. The only contention putforth by the learned counsel for the appellants is that from the time of the order made earlier by the learned single Judge, they were making payment of the lease https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rental of Rs.10 lakhs per month all along the period for about 19 months which comes around Rs.1,90,00,000/- and that all the debtors were actually been addressed to make payment, but it was not forthcoming. Under such circumstances, they could not continue to make the payment. Hence, there arose necessity to seek modification of the order to permit them to run the textile and wattle units without payment of lease amount. Insofar as the other application was concerned, it was contended by the other side that once the payment was not made, pursuant to the undertaking given by them, it is a fit case where the lease has got to be cancelled. 5. The learned single Judge has discussed the matter elaborately and found that there was no justification in the appellants seeking modification of the order. It is not in controversy that the company was under liquidation and interim administrator was also appointment. The appellants were permitted to be in possession of the textile and wattle units only on their undertaking of making a sum of Rs.10 lakhs per month as lease amount. It is also pursuant to their undertaking, they were making payment for about 19 months and they did not make the payment from May, 2009 onwards. Under such circumstances, the application was filed seeking modification of the earlier order permitting them to run those units without payment of any lease/rent. 6. The court is at a loss to understand once they were permitted to carry on their units as a lessee on their undertaking of making a sum of Rs.10 lakhs per month and they have been doing so, there cannot be any justification in coming with such a request that they should be allowed to continue without making payment of lease amount. Since there was no justification, the learned single Judge was correct in dismissing the application seeking for modification. Equally, when the appellants did not make the lease amount which was the undertaking given by them, there is no justification in allowing them to be in possession of the property without payment of the said lease amount. Under such circumstances, the application filed by the other side that the lease should be cancelled was actually allowed. 7. The learned counsel representing the Administrator brought to the notice of the Court that pending proceedings, possession of the property was handed over by the appellants and possession has also been taken by the Administrator. Under such circumstances, the Court is unable to see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. While dismissing the application, the learned single Judge awarded a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the applicants/appellants to the Official Liquidator. In the said circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that in respect of cost alone, the order of the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ single Judge has to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the appellants to the official liquidator alone, is set aside. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vsi To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras. + 4 c.cs. to Mr. B. Ravi Raja, Advocate. S.R.Nos.2377 & 2378. O.S.A.16 & 17 of 2010 KM (CO) GSK 25.01.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/