Kartar Singh Kochhar vs Icici Bank Ltd on 30 May, 2022
8. Defendant was served with summons, whereafter
written statement was filed. Defendant has taken
preliminary objection stating that the bank has paid an
amount of Rs.22,57,914/- in excess to the plaintiff, the
calculation of which has been filed. Defendant was
assured by the plaintiff that entire property was approved
commercial space and basement was also permissible to be
used, however, notice dt. 26.12.2018 was served upon
defendant on 03.01.2019, which was conveyed to the
CS(COMM) 212/20 Page 4 of 34 Kartar Singh Kochhar Vs. ICICI Bank
plaintiff on 04.01.2019. Plaintiff assured that the notice
might have been issued by mistake and oversight and he
did not come to the branch. The defendant sent an e-mail
to the plaintiff that it was immediately surrendering the
possession of 1132 sq.ft. of basement in view of notice dt.
26.12.2018. Plaintiff did not reply the notice nor any
legal proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff as he was
aware that he will not be able to succeed against the notice
received from SDMC. It is stated that defendant was
willing to vacate the premises immediately, however,
plaintiff requested that he was willing to give additional
space of 302 sq. feet on the ground floor and requested the
bank to shift the lockers from basement to the ground
floor. It is stated that since the shifting of locker and
interiors of area required costing of Rs.14 Lakhs and
defendant did not have approval to incur the same, plaintiff
himself offered to bear the expenses and subsequently all
expenses were borne by the plaintiff.