Disposed

Radha Vishoo Adnani. v. Jaswant S. Adnani and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2015CRR/6/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court affirmed an earlier order directing the Defendant to pay royalty charges at Rs. 85,000 per month for a specific period. The President rejected the argument for reduced rates, directed payment of outstanding dues, and authorized fresh advertisements for the commercial premises on leave and licence basis.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 7,65,000 as royalty charges from October 2013 to June 2014; rejection of 10% penalty; authorization for fresh advertisement on 3-year and 5-year terms.

Radha Vishoo Adnani. Vs Jaswant S. Adnani and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

916-CRR6-15.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO. 6 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 1509 OF 1994

¶6

WITH

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 58 OF 2015

¶8

…Plaintiff

¶9

Radha Vishoo Adnani…Plaintiff
Versus
Jaswant S. Adnani & Ors.…Defendants

¶10

Ms. Dipti Panda, with Jayesh Gawde, i/b Thakore Jariwala &
Associates, for the Plaintiff.

¶11

Mr. Y.P. Narwankar, i/b Mr. P.B. Shah, for Defendants Nos. 1A to
1D.
Mr. Anand Mishra, i/b Mr. A.M. Saraogi, for Defendant No. 3.
Mr. K.K. Trivedi, Ist Assistant to Court Receiver is present.

¶12

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 25th March 2015

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1.In this administration suit, this Court Receiver’s Report
relates to commercial premises at 307, Dalamal Chambers, New
Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020.

¶15

1 of 5

¶16

916-CRR6-15.DOC

¶17

2.The factual background of the matter is that on 6th
December 2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Mrs. R.S.
Dalvi, J.) passed an order in Notice of Motion (L) No. 2096 of 2013
inter alia recording in paragraph 4 that the suit premises could fetch
about Rs. 85,000/- per month and that Defendant No. 1(b) was
prepared to pay this amount as royalty charges. At this stage, it
must be noted that Defendant No. 1 was originally the Agent of the
Court Receiver in respect of these premises. On his death,
Defendant No. 1(b) was among those brought on record. The case
of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant No. 1(b) was a trespasser in
these premises at least for the period from October 2013 to June
2014. Although learned Advocate for Defendant No. 1(a) on
instructions today claims that Defendant No. 1(b) never physically
“used” the premises, this makes no difference since it is not in
dispute that the possession of the entirity of the suit premises was
with Defendant No. 1(b), whether authorizedly or unauthorizedly.

¶18

3.Today Defendant No. 1(b) contends that no such statement
was made to the learned Single Judge. This is not an argument that
I can even begun to countenance. The reasons are many. Mrs.
Justice Dalvi’s order was challenged in Appeal (L) No. 13 of 2014.
That appeal was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 10th
September 2014 which records the submission of Defendant No.
1(b) that no such statement was made and also records that when an
application for speaking to the minutes of order was made on 7th
May 2014, no clarification was issued. The appeal was disposed of
by allowing the Appellant to oppose, “in accordance with law”, any
application that the Court Receiver might make threafter calling for
a deposit of this amount of Rs. 85,000/- per month.

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

916-CRR6-15.DOC

¶21

4.The sum and substance of this is that there is an order of the
learned Single Judge recording the statement on behalf of
Defendant No. 1(b) to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.85,000 per
month. Defendant No. 1(b) was represented by a learned Senior
Advocate at that time and it appears that the order was dictated in
open Court and not reserved for any reason. That order was
challenged in appeal. No clarification, modification or variation was
permitted by the Appeal Court. The Defendant No. 1(b) sought a
clarification from the learned Single Judge herself by way of
speaking to the minutes. This attempt also failed. I do not see how I
can possibly today reopen that very issue, i.e., whether the
Defendant No. 1(b) did or did not make that statement to the
learned Single Judge. This would amount to sitting in appeal over
the order of the learned Single Judge. This I cannot and will not do.
It would also necessarily mean sitting in appeal over the orders of
the Appeal Court. That too I cannot and will not do. The order of
the learned Single Judge binds me. The statement recorded on
behalf of Defendant No. 1(b) is part of an order of the Court and it
must be implemented as such, all avenues available to Defendant
No. 1(b) having now been exhausted.

¶22

5.Defendant No.1 (b) submits that he should be directed to pay
only 50% of the royalty as he would be entitled to 50% of these
premises on administration. This argument is without substance in
view of the circumstances noted earlier.

¶23

6.Defendant No. 1(b) is directed to make payment of the
royalty charges at Rs. 85,000/- per month from October 2013 to
June 2014, aggregating to Rs. 7,65,000/- on or before 27th April

¶24

3 of 5

¶25

916-CRR6-15.DOC

¶26

2015. The prayer for 10% penalty on account of non-deposit of
royalty is expressly rejected in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case.

¶27

7.In the event that the deposit is not made, both the Court
Receiver and the Plaintiff are at liberty to proceed in accordance
with law, including, if permissible, in execution of this order.

¶28

8.The premises have remained unoccupied for an inordinate
period of time. None of the parties have brought in any bids. This is
of no advantage to the estate sought to be administered. Parties are
agreed that the Plaintiff’s advertisement for giving the premises on
leave and licence basis was unsuccessful, possibly because the
period offered was only one year. By consent, the Court Receiver
will issue a fresh advertisement offering the premises on leave and
licence basis for a period of (a) three years; and (b) five years.

¶29

9.The Court Receiver has funds of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by
Defendant No. 1(b). From the available funds deposited by
Defendant No. 1(b), the electricity dues to BEST for July 2014 shall
be paid out first. The costs of the advertisement will, for the
present, be paid from the remainder of this deposit. Should a
successful bidder be found, the costs of the advertisement will
immediately be refunded to the Defendant No. 1(b).

¶30

10.The Receiver will also be entitled to the costs of this report
to be borne by Defendant No. 1(b) in accordance with prayer (d).

¶31

4 of 5

¶32

916-CRR6-15.DOC

¶33

11.In view of this order, Notice of Motion No. 58 of 2015 does
not survive and is disposed of as such.

¶34

12.Let the Court Receiver make a report after the advertisement
is issued.

¶35

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶36

5 of 5

Radha Vishoo Adnani. v. Jaswant S. Adnani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Vishoo Adnani. v. Jaswant S. Adnani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Ashdin Mackey Pithawala (Plaintiff NO.1) Vs Mrs. Kainaaz Ashdin Pithawala (Plaintiff NO.2)

Abhimanyu Rajendra Prasad Neogi Vs Karanaditya Neogi

Smt. Radhabai Kishore Kadam Vs Smt. Rakmabai Baburao Nanavare......Deceased.

Shri Yashwant Gangaram Kandpile Vs Shri Rajaram Gangaram Kandpile and Ors.

Shri Yashwant Gangaram Kandpile Vs Shri Rajaram Gangaram Kandpile and Ors.

Reena Sudhir Nevrekar and Anr. Vs Vidya Ramchandra Amonkar and Ors.