Dismissed

M/S. Institute of Advanced Computing & Management v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/2182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition for an extension of time to vacate premises leased to SBI. The court accepted an undertaking from the petitioner's representative to hand over possession by April 15, 2016, conditioned on the payment of Rs.1 lakh occupation rent, pending the resolution of unpaid rent claims by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time till 15th April 2016 to vacate premises subject to payment of Rs.1 lakh occupation rent and signing an undertaking to hand over vacant possession and clear utilities.

M/S. Institute of Advanced Computing & Management Vs State… — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~17

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2182/2016 & CM No.9334/2016 (for stay)

¶4

M/S. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED COMPUTING & MANAGEMENT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Mr. Manish Srivastava and Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advs. with Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Executive Director of petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Mr. Ruchi Jain, Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad and Mr. Sumit Misra, Advs. for R-1/SBI with Mr. V.K. Saxena, AGM, SBI.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 17.03.2016

¶8

This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 14^th March, 2016.

¶9

The counsel for the petitioner states that though a sum of approximately Rs.14 lakhs is due towards increases in rent till now but the petitioner is not willing to pay the same. It is further stated that the prevalent rent of the premises remains Rs.25,000/- per month only.

¶10

The learned ASG appearing for the respondent No.1 State Bank of India (SBI) has explained the reasons for which the steps for having the rent W.P.(C) 2182/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶11

increased were not taken by the respondent No.1 SBI. He assures that the order dated 14^th March, 2016 has been placed before the Chairman-cumManaging Director of the respondent No.1 SBI and that remedial measures will be taken to ensure that all rights with respect to secured asset are in future enforced at the appropriate time.

¶12

Accepting the said explanation and assurance and further expressing a hope that the measures so taken shall also be efficiently implemented, the observation in the order dated 14^th March, 2016, of the respondent No.1 SBI having not protected its right, is withdrawn.

¶13

I am of the opinion that the petitioner having approached this Court in equity, it not being willing to pay the amounts which as per the agreement, on the basis of which it claims, are due from it, is not entitled to any equitable relief.

¶14

In this view of the matter, arguments have been heard.

¶15

However, after conclusion of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner confines the relief in the petition only to grant of time till 15^th April, 2016 to vacate the premises.

¶16

Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Executive Director of IACM SmartLearn Limited of which the petitioner is stated to be a unit, as identified by counsel for petitioner undertakes to this Court to hand over vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the entire subject premises to the authorised officer of the respondent No.1 SBI on 15^th April, 2016 at 1100 hours. He further undertakes that he will clear all electricity and water dues of the premises till the date of vacation of the premises and that there is and will be no damage W.P.(C) 2182/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶17

to the premises. He also states that the petitioner has deposited rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month till the month of March, 2016.

¶18

Making Mr. Sandeep Gupta aware of the consequences of breach of undertaking given to the Court, his undertaking is accepted on the condition that the petitioner, within one week of today, pays a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent No.1 SBI for occupation of the premises till 15^th April, 2016 and the petitioner is ordered to be bound thereby.

¶19

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, subject to the petitioner complying with the undertaking aforesaid, the petitioner is granted time till 15^th April, 2016 to vacate the premises. The respondent No.1 SBI, if so advised, shall also have liberty to claim mesne profits / damages for use and occupation of the premises from the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶20

No costs.

¶21

Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶22

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶23

MARCH 17, 2016 bs..

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) 2182/2016

M/S. Institute of Advanced Computing & Management v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Institute of Advanced Computing & Management v. State Bank of India & 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

M/S Veetee Fine Foods Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Shyam Advertisor Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Suresh Kumar

R.D. Malik Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Government of NCT Delhi Vs Suresh Chand Khanna

Pradeep Kumar Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Rohde & Schswarz P.Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

Mtnl Staff Union & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

All India Carrom Federation Vs Union of India

Rajinder Kaur @ Rani Vs Ajay Kumar Sinha

Radhika Sharma Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Airport Authority Karamchari Union Vs Union of India and Ors.

Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc)

Simranjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Mukesh Anand