Attaches Rs 66 Lakh from FIITJEE for Unpaid Rent
Justice Sachin Datta of the has ordered the of Rs 66.31 lakh from the bank account of ’s , , in a dispute over unpaid rent. The court also directed the directors of FIITJEE to deposit their original passports and restrained them from traveling abroad without permission.
A Lease Gone Sour: FIITJEE’s Unpaid Rent Saga
The petitioners, Cdr. Inder Jit Singh and Mr. Vijay Singh Vasisht, had leased out their premises to . After the termination of the lease, the petitioners reclaimed possession but alleged that a substantial amount of rent remained unpaid. According to the petitioners, the arrears amounted to Rs 33,15,957.50 in each of the two petitions, totaling Rs 66,31,915.
Petitioner’s Reliance on Precedent
During the hearing, senior counsel for the petitioners, , drew the court’s attention to an earlier order passed in a similar matter, . In that case, FIITJEE had through payments made from a bank account belonging to its , , maintained with , Nehru Place Branch (Account No. 629405047349). The petitioners argued that the same account should be tapped to recover the current arrears.
Respondent’s Ineffectual Opposition
Counsel for FIITJEE, , pleaded that the company was unable to pay any amount as its bank account had been attached by the police in connection with certain . However, she failed to provide any specifics regarding such . The court noted that the respondent’s counsel was also unable to refute that, in the earlier similar matter, the liability had been discharged through the very same account.
Court’s Directions
Considering the circumstances, Justice Datta issued the following :
- The amount lying in the aforementioned account (No. 629405047349) shall stand attached to the extent of Rs 66,31,915, subject to further orders.
- The directors of FIITJEE are directed to remain present in court on the next date of hearing.
- They must deposit their original passports within four weeks and are restrained from traveling abroad without the court’s permission.
The court observed that the respondent had not provided any details to support its claim of , and in light of the earlier order, the of the ’s account was justified.
Key Observations
The court noted: “Learned counsel for the respondent pleads inability on the part of the respondent to pay any amount to the petitioner inasmuch as the bank account of the respondent is stated to have been attached by the police in the context of certain . However, the learned counsel for the respondent is unable to provide any details thereof.”
Further, the court stated: “Learned counsel for the respondent is also unable to refute that in the context of a similar matter, involving the same respondent, the liability of the respondent was discharged through the bank account referred hereinabove (which is in the name of a / of the respondent viz. ).”
Implications for Tenants and Corporate Veil
This order underscores the court’s willingness to in interim proceedings to ensure that tenants cannot evade rent liability by hiding behind separate corporate entities. The of a ’s bank account and the travel ban on directors signal a stringent approach to securing claims.
The matter is listed for further hearing on .