NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5471 OF 2005
Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. …..Appellant
Versus
Custodian & Anr. …..Respondents
W I T H
C.A.Nos.5788-5789 of 2005
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
Civil Appeal No.5471 of 2005
Heard the parties. The appellant is a notified party under Section 3(2) of
the Special Courts (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in
Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Its tenancy
rights over the premises bearing Flat No.2, situated on the ground floor of
a building known as Krishna Mahal at 36, Marine Drive, D-Road, Mumbai
belonging to respondent no.2, the owner and landlord also came to be
attached under the provisions of the Act. The respondent no.1 filed an
application before the Special Court which was numbered as Miscellaneous
Petition No.17 of 2004. He claimed that the flat which stood attached for
the tenancy rights of the notified party be also dealt with and disposed of
for the best available price for satisfying the liabilities of the
appellant under Section 11 of the Act. That Miscellaneous Petition was
entertained and it ultimately resulted in acceptance of highest offer of
Rs.75 Lacs made by the landlord as it was the highest offer which could be
obtained for surrender of the tenancy rights of the appellant. Under the
orders of the Special Court respondent no.2 has deposited Rs.10 Lacs with a
stipulation that he will not claim any interest over the said deposit and
shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.65 Lacs whenever required to do so.
By the impugned order dated 21.07.2005 the Special Court noted that despite
public advertisement there was no matching offer and hence it accepted the
offer of respondent no.2 the landlord and directed the appellant to file an
undertaking within one week to hand over the vacant possession of the
premises within four weeks.
The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that there are no
liabilities outstanding for the statutory period and therefore there is no
requirement to dispose of its tenancy rights is ex-facie found to have no
merits. As a result we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
On account of our concern for the proper value for surrender of the tenancy
by the appellant on account of long pendency of this appeal for about a
decade, learned counsel for respondent no.2 disclosed that for valid
reasons, the tenancy is not protected under the relevant rent law and
hence no person was likely to offer a better price. But as a goodwill
gesture, on instructions of Mr. Ajit Jhaveri, Director of respondent no.2-
Reshma Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the landlord) who is present in Court today, he
has submitted in writing that the respondent no.2 shall not only deposit
the balance Rs.65 Lacs as directed by the impugned order of the Special
Court but also undertakes to deposit a further sum of Rs.10 Lacs as an
additional consideration and also a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- which is the
rental amount received by the landlord from 2006 till date. Respondent
no.2 has also agreed that the interest accrued on the amount of Rs.10 Lacs
already deposited by the landlord as per the impugned order in the year
2005 could also go to the Custodian. However, he has prayed for eight
weeks’ time to make the deposit of the balance amounts, i.e., Rs.65 Lacs,
Rs.10 Lacs and Rs.3.92 Lacs. There is no opposition to this offer.
In the facts of the case while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, in
the larger interest of justice we modify the impugned order and direct
respondent no.2 to deposit within eight weeks from today the earlier
balance amount of Rs.65 Lacs along with additional amount of Rs.13,92,000/-
. In other words respondent no.2 in order to get the benefit of the
impugned order shall now make in total a deposit of Rs.78,92,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Eight Lac Ninety Two Thousand) within eight weeks and shall not
claim interest accrued on the amount of Rs.10 Lac already deposited by him.
On such deposit being made within eight weeks, the Custodian shall deliver
the possession of the flat to the respondent no.2 the landlord without any
delay and in any case within one week of such deposit.
Civil Appeal Nos.5788-5789 of 2005
The connected Civil Appeal Nos.5788-5789 of 2005 preferred against earlier
orders passed by the Special Court in connection with the same subject
matter shall also stand dismissed.
In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………….J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
……………………………………..J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi.
August 10, 2015.
-----------------------
5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5471 OF 2005
Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. …..Appellant
Versus
Custodian & Anr. …..Respondents
W I T H
C.A.Nos.5788-5789 of 2005
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
Civil Appeal No.5471 of 2005
Heard the parties. The appellant is a notified party under Section 3(2) of
the Special Courts (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in
Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Its tenancy
rights over the premises bearing Flat No.2, situated on the ground floor of
a building known as Krishna Mahal at 36, Marine Drive, D-Road, Mumbai
belonging to respondent no.2, the owner and landlord also came to be
attached under the provisions of the Act. The respondent no.1 filed an
application before the Special Court which was numbered as Miscellaneous
Petition No.17 of 2004. He claimed that the flat which stood attached for
the tenancy rights of the notified party be also dealt with and disposed of
for the best available price for satisfying the liabilities of the
appellant under Section 11 of the Act. That Miscellaneous Petition was
entertained and it ultimately resulted in acceptance of highest offer of
Rs.75 Lacs made by the landlord as it was the highest offer which could be
obtained for surrender of the tenancy rights of the appellant. Under the
orders of the Special Court respondent no.2 has deposited Rs.10 Lacs with a
stipulation that he will not claim any interest over the said deposit and
shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.65 Lacs whenever required to do so.
By the impugned order dated 21.07.2005 the Special Court noted that despite
public advertisement there was no matching offer and hence it accepted the
offer of respondent no.2 the landlord and directed the appellant to file an
undertaking within one week to hand over the vacant possession of the
premises within four weeks.
The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that there are no
liabilities outstanding for the statutory period and therefore there is no
requirement to dispose of its tenancy rights is ex-facie found to have no
merits. As a result we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
On account of our concern for the proper value for surrender of the tenancy
by the appellant on account of long pendency of this appeal for about a
decade, learned counsel for respondent no.2 disclosed that for valid
reasons, the tenancy is not protected under the relevant rent law and
hence no person was likely to offer a better price. But as a goodwill
gesture, on instructions of Mr. Ajit Jhaveri, Director of respondent no.2-
Reshma Estates Pvt. Ltd. (the landlord) who is present in Court today, he
has submitted in writing that the respondent no.2 shall not only deposit
the balance Rs.65 Lacs as directed by the impugned order of the Special
Court but also undertakes to deposit a further sum of Rs.10 Lacs as an
additional consideration and also a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- which is the
rental amount received by the landlord from 2006 till date. Respondent
no.2 has also agreed that the interest accrued on the amount of Rs.10 Lacs
already deposited by the landlord as per the impugned order in the year
2005 could also go to the Custodian. However, he has prayed for eight
weeks’ time to make the deposit of the balance amounts, i.e., Rs.65 Lacs,
Rs.10 Lacs and Rs.3.92 Lacs. There is no opposition to this offer.
In the facts of the case while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, in
the larger interest of justice we modify the impugned order and direct
respondent no.2 to deposit within eight weeks from today the earlier
balance amount of Rs.65 Lacs along with additional amount of Rs.13,92,000/-
. In other words respondent no.2 in order to get the benefit of the
impugned order shall now make in total a deposit of Rs.78,92,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Eight Lac Ninety Two Thousand) within eight weeks and shall not
claim interest accrued on the amount of Rs.10 Lac already deposited by him.
On such deposit being made within eight weeks, the Custodian shall deliver
the possession of the flat to the respondent no.2 the landlord without any
delay and in any case within one week of such deposit.
Civil Appeal Nos.5788-5789 of 2005
The connected Civil Appeal Nos.5788-5789 of 2005 preferred against earlier
orders passed by the Special Court in connection with the same subject
matter shall also stand dismissed.
In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………….J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
……………………………………..J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi.
August 10, 2015.
-----------------------
5
