Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Through Its ... vs Dr. Vikram Hingorani on 25 April, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.86948696/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 3101
2014 in RFA No.500/2012 with CM No.20871/2012 & RFA No.93/2013
passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
Amended Cause title
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DR. VIKRAM HINGORANI & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 25042018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun, Adv. [AOR] For Respondent Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Nos.1 to 6 Dr. Aman Hingorani, Adv.
Ms. Priya Hingorani, Adv. Dr. Shukla Hingorani, Adv. for M/s. Hingorani & Associates, Advs. [AOR] No.9 Mr. S.S. Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Bagga, Adv.
Ms. Bharti Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advs. [AOR] Signature Not Verified No.10 Dr. Bipin K. Dwivedi, Adv.Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER
Mr. Abrar AG, Adv.
Date: 2018.04.26 17:42:20 IST Reason:
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. [AOR] No.7 Notice dispensed with.
Nos.8 & 11 Unserved/Not represented. SLP(C)Nos.869496/14 ... (contd.) 2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 6.
In our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the status of the petitioner, time is granted till end of December 2018 to vacate the premises in question failing which the concerned authorities of the bank shall be liable for contempt of this Court.
Vide order dated 15.04.2014, while issuing notice, it was directed that the petitioner shall deposit before the trial court compensation for the use and occupation of the premises @ R.2,00,000/ per month with effect from the date of the impugned order. The amount so deposited was to be invested in a term deposit which was to enure for the benefit of the successful party.
In view of the order passed today, the abovementioned amount along with accrued interest is now directed to be released in favour of respondent nos.1 to 6 (plaintiffs before the trial court).
As the petitioner has been granted time to vacate the premises till end of December 2018, it shall continue to pay the use and occupation charges at the abovementioned rate to respondent nos.1 to 6 till the vacation of the premises. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Subhash Chander) (H.S. Parasher) ARcumPS Assistant Registrar