Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Raghuleela Builders Private Limited vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 29 April, 2019
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Indira Banerjee
1
ITEM NO.19 + 62 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Item No.19 :
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).8806/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-02-2019
in WPL No.212/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
RAGHULEELA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(MMRDA) & ANR. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) fir exemption from filing c/c of the impugned
judgment and permission to file addl. documents/facts/annexures)
WITH
W.P.(C) No.533/2019 (X)
Item No.62 :
WP(C)No.546/2019
WITH SLP(C)No.10741/2019 - (With appln. for exemption from filing
c/c of the impugned judgment)
Date : 29-04-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Kirpal,Adv.
Mr. Parthiv Goswami,Adv.
Ms. Diksha Rai,AOR
Ms. Palak Mahajan,Adv.
Mr. Ishan Bisht,Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Ashish Batra,Adv.
Mr. Rakhtim Gogoi,Adv.
Digitally signed by
SARITA PUROHIT
Date: 2019.05.01
14:09:36 IST
Reason: Mr. Wattan Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Sachdev,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C)No.8806/2019 :
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though as per terms of the supplementary lease deed, the interest on delayed payments is chargeable at prevailing prime lending rate (PLR), the current position is that the RBI prescribes the base interest rate and the repo rate. It is his submission that it is the repo rate which should be applicable as an interim measure rather than the base rate specified in paragraph (C)(ii) of the operative portion of the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid given situation, it may be appropriate that the petitioner is granted leave to withdraw the present special leave petition, with liberty to approach the High Court seeking review, limited to the aforesaid aspect.
He further submits that there are certain other issues arising in respect of the same property in WP No.586/2018 and thus, it may be appropriate to hear that petition and the review application to be filed, together.
Liberty is granted as aforesaid.
The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.
Needless to say that the High Court would consider it as expeditiously as possible.
WP(C)Nos.533/2019 and 546/2019 :
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the writ petitions, with liberty to approach the High Court.
The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.3
SLP(C)No.10741/2019 :
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition. He states that in case there is any delay in disposal of the interim application by the Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner will make necessary prayer before the concerned High Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn, in the aforesaid terms.
(Anita Rani Ahuja) (Sarita Purohit)
Branch Officer AR-cum-PS