Disposed

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda) and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2019NMW/103/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a notice of motion challenging an interim order regarding lease premium calculations. Finding the Respondents' corrected calculation acceptable, the Court directed the issuance of NoC and Occupancy Certificates upon deposit of dues, warning against contempt for future non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents to issue NoC for assignment and OC for proportionate area immediately upon receipt of deposit by Petitioner.

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Mumbai Metropolitan… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Nmw-103/19.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 103 OF 2019 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION [LD.] NO. 212 OF 2019

¶5

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant. In the matter between Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Another. ..Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vibhav Krishna, Ahtesham Khatri, Shanmugham, Mayuresh Borkar, Tushar Pande, Devang Lakhotia I/b Juris Consillis for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amogh Singh, Nivit Shrivastava, Sneha Patil I/b Maniar Shrivastava Associats for the Respondent.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Date : March 27, 2019 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Nankani, learned senior counsel for the

¶11

Petitioner/Applicant and Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel for the Respondents.

¶12

On 20^th February 2019, after hearing both sides at length, we passed speaking order whereunder we admitted the writ petition and by way of interim relief following directions are given :

1 / 8

patilsr

Nmw-103/19.

“[1] The Respondents are directed to provide within 10 days a computation of following :

¶17

[A] (i) the total amount paid towards the lease premium as per the acknowledgements signed by the Respondents.

¶18

(ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards the lease premium.

¶19

[B] (i) the total amount paid towards the simple interest as per the acknowledgements signed by the Respondents.

¶20

(ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards the simple interest as per the lease deed.

¶21

[C] (i) the total amount paid towards the penal interest as per the acknowledgements / receipts signed by the Respondents.

¶22

(ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards the penal interest as per the RBI prime lending rate (Base rate) on 1^st July of each year without charging penal interest on interest.

¶23

(iii) additional amount if penal interest is also charged on unpaid interest.

¶24

[2] The Petitioners are directed to deposit within three months thereafter the entire balance amount so communicated by the Respondents towards the lease premium (Clause [1][A] (ii)), simple interest (Clause [1]B) and penal interest (Clause [1]C). This deposit however would be subject to final outcome of the petition.

¶25

[3] The Petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking to bind to deposit the additional amount that may be computed by the Respondents under para (Clause [1]C), i.e., penal interest is charged on the unpaid interest. This undertaking would be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition.

¶26

[4] The Respondents are directed to issue NoC for assignment of the balance area immediately without insisting for any payment.

¶27

[5] The Respondents are further directed to process the OC of proportionate area, corresponding to the above payment within a week from the receipt of payment of the above said amount computed by them and upon submission of undertaking as above.”

2 / 8

patilsr

Nmw-103/19.

The present notice of motion is filed by the Petitioner, making grievance that calculation made by Respondent No.1 is contrary to the interim order passed by this Court and therefore he has approached this Court for the following reliefs :

¶32

“1. That, this Hon'ble Court may please forthwith permit the Petitioner to assign the balance area under the Supplementary Lease Deed and for this purpose direct the Respondents to forthwith grant unconditional NOC;

¶33

That, this Hon'ble Court may please direct the Respondents to accept total deposit of Rs.539.46 crores under the Supplementary Lease dated 29.10.2013 computed in terms of the Order dated 20.02.2019 (at Exh-1 supra), which shall be paid by the Petitioner within three months of such direction;

¶34

That, this Hon'ble Court may please accept the undertaking of the Petitioner binding itself to pay the balance amount of Rs.44,822 crores, and further liability if any, subject to final outcome of the instant petition as well as pending WP 586 of 2018;

¶35

That, this Hon'ble Court may please direct the Respondents to issue OC of proportionate area, corresponding to the payment, within a week from the receipt of payment of the above said amount.”

¶36

4. Respondent No. 1 and 2 in terms of the interim order

¶37

mentioned above has given following calculation :

¶38

Hon. High Courts Order dt. 20/02/2019

¶39

As per prevailing practice of MMRDA
By charging Penal Interest as per
PLR of SBI (as per Authority Resolution)

3 / 8

patilsr

Nmw-103/19.

	(Rs. In Cr. As on 25.02.2019)
In the light of above, we pass following interim order : [1] the Respondents are directed to provide within 10 days a computation of following :
A the total amount paid towards the lease premium as per the acknowledgements signed by the Respondents.	703.07
(ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards the lease premium.	618.29
[B] (i) the total amount paid towards the simple interest as per the acknowledgements signed by the Respondents.	106.09
(ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards the simple interest as per the lease deed.	0.00
C the total amount paid towards the penal interest as per the acknowledgements / receipts signed by the Respondents.	0.00
(ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards the penal interest as per the RBI prime lending rate (Base rate) on 1^stJuly of each year without charging penal interest on interest.	164.31
(iii) additional amount if penal interest is also charged on unpaid interest.	--
[2] The Petitioners are directed to deposit within three months thereafter the entire balance amount so communicated by the Respondents towards the lease premium (Clause [1]A), simple interest (Clause [1][B] (ii)) and penal interest (Clause [1]C). This deposit however would be subject to final outcome of the petition.	782.60 (618.29 +164.31 =782.60) (Rs. Seven Hundred Eighty Two crores and Sixty Lakhs only)

¶44

Yesterday, we heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. We noted that the calculation submitted by the Respondents is incorrect. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel, however, requested to keep the matter today. He submitted that he

4 / 8

patilsr

Nmw-103/19.

would seat with his officers and will give correct calculations.

¶49

When the matter was called out today for orders, Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents having taken instructions from his clients, placed on record the fresh calculations of the amount to be paid by the Petitioner in terms of the interim order. The same is taken on record. For ready reference the said calculation is reproduced hereinbelow :

¶50

Hon. High Courts Order dt. 20/02/2019 Rs. in Cr. A the total amount paid towards the lease premium as per 703.07 the acknowledgements signed by the Respondents. (ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards 281.83 the lease premium. [B] (i) the total amount paid towards the simple interest as per 106.09 the acknowledgements signed by the Respondents. (ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards 90.89 the simple interest as per the lease deed. C the total amount paid towards the penal interest as per 0 the acknowledgements / receipts signed by the Respondents. (ii) balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner towards 168.44 the penal interest as per the RBI prime lending rate (Base rate) on 1^st July of each year without charging penal interest on interest. [2] The Petitioners are directed to deposit within three 541.16 months thereafter the entire balance amount so (281.83 communicated by the Respondents towards the lease +90.89 premium (Clause [1]A), simple interest (Clause [1]B) +168.44 and penal interest (Clause [1]C). This deposit however = 541.16) would be subject to final outcome of the petition. [3] The Petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking to bind To be provided to deposit the additional amount that may be computed by later. the Respondents under para (Clause [1]C), i.e., penal

5 / 8

patilsr

Nmw-103/19.

interest is charged on the unpaid interest. This undertaking would be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition.

¶55

According to the Petitioner, the total amount which the Petitioner is liable to pay under the interim order is Rs.539.46 crore and according to the Respondents, as per the corrected calculation, this amount comes to Rs.541.16 crore. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner having taken instructions from his client submitted that the Petitioner has no objection to pay this amount of Rs.541.16 crore in accordance with the interim order referred to above.

¶56

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this amount would be paid to the Respondents by the Petitioner within the period of three months from today. Statement accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

¶57

In the light of above, we direct the Respondents to issue NoC in favour of the Petitioner for assignment of the balance area immediately without insisting for any payment as per Clause [4] of the interim order referred to above. We also direct the Respondents to issue OC of the proportionate area, in terms of clause [5] of the interim order within the period of one week from the date of receipt

6 / 8

patilsr

Nmw-103/19.

of above amount of Rs.541.16 crores.

¶62

The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner at this stage invited our attention to clauses (v) and (vii) of the letter dated 13^th March 2019 issued by Respondent No.2. We have gone through the said clauses. Clause (v) virtually suggests that order passed by the High Court is incorrect one. This is nothing short of contempt of Court.

¶63

That apart, despite the interim order referred to above, Respondent No. 2 in clause (vii) ha stated as follows :

¶64

“.................. Public Accounts Committee of Maharashtra State Legislature in its meeting held on 27/12/2018 and 14/02/2019 has raised the objection in respect of the pending premium to be recovered from the development on plot under reference. Accordingly, Urban Development Department on 01/01/2019 has directed MMRDA not to issue any CC or OC for the building on plot under reference till the outstanding amount is recovered. Further, UDD on 20/02/2019 has directed MMRDA to put up a strong stand in the Hon. High Court regarding the recovery of outstanding amount. In view of above, MMRDA shall not issue any further CC/OC on plot under reference till outstanding amount is recovered.”

¶65

Whatever may be the apprehensions of the Respondents, we make it clear that it obligatory for them to comply

¶66

with the orders of this Court or else they can be held guilty for disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. Since the

7 / 8

patilsr

Nmw-103/19.

Respondents have now correctly calculated the amount payable under the interim order and have shown the willingness to issue OC after deposit of the amount by the Petitioner, we are not inclined to proceed further against them by initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶71

We also accept undertaking of the Petitioner in prayer clause (3) of the notice of motion and make it clear that payment of the amount and issuance of OC for proportionate area would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

¶72

Notice of motion stands disposed of.

¶73

Time to carry out amendments in terms of the earlier order is extended by two weeks from today.

¶74

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

¶75

order.

¶76

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶77

8 / 8

¶78

patilsr

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda) and Anr.

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

Maharaja Retreat Chs Ltd. Thr K. v. Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepak Madhavrao Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhimraj Rohidas Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mehmood Iqrar Ahmed Shaikh @ Mehmood Iqrar Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vineet Mahendra Doshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hritik Appasaheb Rupanar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.