Bombay High Court
Rang Sharda Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs Marico Industries Ltd And Municipal ... on 11 June, 2019
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
49-NMS-1227-14+.doc
Sharayu Khot.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1227 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO. 3681 OF 2002
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1222 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO. 3610 OF 2002
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1236 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO. 3566 OF 2002
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 353 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 3566 OF 2002
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 354 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 3681 OF 2002
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 355 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 3610 OF 2002
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 479 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 3611 OF 2002
1/5
June 11, 2019
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:57:31 :::
49-NMS-1227-14+.doc
Rang Sharda Hotels Private Limited ...Plaintiff
Versus
Marico Industries Limited ...Defendant
----------
Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, i/by M/s. S. Kothari & Co., for the
Plaintiff.
Ms. Deepti Panda, with Mr. Ramachandran Narayanan, Mr.
Tejas Shah, i/by Narayanan & Narayanan Co., for the Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 in NMSL/3511/12, NMS/1227/14, NMSL/355/18,
NMS/1222/14, NMSL/358/18 and NMS/1236/14.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
DATE : 11 June 2019
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. Notice of Motion No. 1227 of 2014 has been taken out for directions against the Defendant to pay arrears of monthly outgoing charges including sinking fund and common area charges at enhanced rate as per calculations in statement annexed to Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion and marked as Exh.B from the date of filing of the Suit till 31st March 2019.
2. In the statement at Exh.B at Sr.No. 6, the actual 2/5 June 11, 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:57:31 ::: 49-NMS-1227-14+.doc expenses per sq.ft. (excluding property tax) per month has been given in the year August 2002 till 2012-12 and at Sr.No. 7 the rate for monthly outgoing (excluding property tax) has been set out for the same period. There is a difference between actual expenses per sq.ft. and the rate of monthly outgoing and the Plaintiff is seeking enhancement in the rate for monthly outgoing at the current rate and to match the actual expenses.
3. The learned Counsel for the Defendants has sought time to file Reply to the Notice of Motion, which Notice of Motion had been filed in September 2014 and was by order of this Court dated 25th June 2015 adjourned to be heard along with final hearing of the Suit. Thereafter, by order dated 7th August 2018, the Division Bench of this Court had held that the hearing of the Notice of Motion pending before the learned Single Judge would not be delayed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25th June 2015 insofar as it directed the hearing of the Notice of Motion along with the Suit was set aside. It was directed that the learned Single Judge to decide the 3/5 June 11, 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:57:31 ::: 49-NMS-1227-14+.doc Notice of Motion at the earliest on its own merits.
4. In the light of the order dated 7th August 2018, the Notice of Motion is required to be decided at the earliest and has come up today. The learned Counsel for the Defendants is not right in seeking further time to file Reply to the Notice of Motion, which has been pending for several years.
5. Considering the request made by the learned Counsel for the Defendants that they will file an Affidavit as the figures given in Exh.B to the Notice of Motion regarding the actual expenses per sq.ft. (excluding property tax) per month as well as sinking charges to be paid by the Defendants is being disputed by them. At last opportunity is given to the Defendants to file Affidavit in Reply within a period of two weeks from today.
6. This Affidavit shall be filed subject to payment of costs to the Plaintiff which shall be of an amount of Rs. 4/5
June 11, 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:57:31 ::: 49-NMS-1227-14+.doc 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) payable within a period of one week from the date of uploading this order to the Plaintiff.
7. Insofar as the other issue with regard to the Notice of Motion taken out by the Defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for striking out of the Suit on the ground that the Plaintiff had committed a breach of the order dated 25th July 2018, this Notice of Motion will be heard along with the above Notice of Motion.
8. The learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has also made certain submissions that the property tax has not been paid in full by the Plaintiff. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has its own independent remedy.
9. Place all these Notices of Motion on 2nd July 2019 for hearing.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] 5/5 June 11, 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:57:31 :::