Tag: #DelhiHighCourt

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

The Delhi High Court on 6th February 2023 held a sadar bazar trader guilty of violating the restraining order by selling counterfeit products of the famous Louis Vuitton brand.

Facts:

Everyone desires to own luxury items like Prada, lv, etc. But these items are so costly that even the upper middle class can’t afford them. Traders take advantage of this situation and make duplicate branded products to deceive customers. The same happened in the present case. The famous LV brand has sued several small entities that manufactured and sold products under its name. The court in its decision has used the term counterfeit, to let us know its meaning. A counterfeit is an item which uses someone else’s trademark without their permission.

On 23rd September 2021, the court found the trader guilty and passed interlocutory orders to restrain them.
According to the order, the defendants were restrained from importing, selling, manufacturing, or dealing directly or indirectly with the lv-labelled goods.

The present appeal was filed by the plaintiff alleging that even after injunction orders, defendant 2 and defendant 3 have been selling products under the brand’s name. The application prayed that the defendant must be punished for this violation of the injunction.

Plaintiff’s contention:

Mr Anand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff claimed that defendant 2 has continued the business of selling belts of lv till September 2022. Opposing the request of the defendant party to take lenient action, he submits that counterfeiting has now become a social evil and the court must take strict action against it, as it has eroded the brand value which was built over the years. He said that leniency, in this case, would encourage others to commit this wrong.

Defendant 2 has also imitated other reputed brands. Mr Anand also stated that the court must consider this strictly as a breach of its order. He also wants the court to take action for counterfeiting other brands like Gucci, etc.
He urges that the punishment should be proportionate to the wrong. If it is the first time counterfeiting then strict action must be taken as it has become a habitual business for the defendant.

He also submitted a report to the civil justice council under the UK Civil Procedure Act 1997, titled ―Anti-social behaviour and the Civil Code to prove his points.

He also took the decisions made by Various learned single judges High Court of Bombay in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Curetech Skincare10 and decisions of the Federal Court of Singapore in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises11 and Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Lin Pi-Chu Yang12. He also relied on section 105 of the Trade Marks Act.

Defendant’s contention:

Mr Burender Bhatt, learned counsel for defendant 2, acknowledged the fact that his client has been selling the lv belt even after the injunction orders. He apologised for the breach and asked for leniency in the matter. He also argued that the court must not rely on sentencing practices in foreign jurisdictions while deciding on this case.

He said even Mr Anand has not pointed out any case in India where the court has relied on foreign practices. The action must be limited to the injunction which was granted by the court, and which has been breached by the defendant and it has no relation to counterfeiting of other brands. Mr Anand has failed to present any proof to show that the defendant has counterfeited any other brand. He also claimed that section 105 of the trade mark act is not applicable in the present case.

The cases presented by Mr Anand dealt with the damage being awarded while the decree was being passed. Thus they have no such relevance here. However, counterfeiting is a serious matter and the defendant has committed it even after the orders of the court. Mr Bhatt apologised for the same but it would hardly make any difference.

Judgement:

Justice C Hari Shankar expressed that the defendant is not entitled to any sympathy. The court added that there should be a message for all those who indulge or propose to indulge in the practice of counterfeiting. The defendant was directed to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs within four weeks. If failed to do so the proprietor of defendant 2 Javed Ansari shall be punished with a sentence in prison for 1 week in Tihar jail.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JK2Zu3

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000810

–Report by Sanya Luthra

The case Sandesh Mayekar vs Union of India and Ors deals with the petitioner demanding a fair election procedure for a member of the Dental Council of India in the state of Maharashtra and therefore suggesting the process for the elections and how it should be free of all biases and should take place fairly and everyone have an equal chance of being a member.

FACTS:

A writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the electoral process of the member of the Dental Council of India as the maintenance of the register for the election was done by the Indian Dental Association whose president was also a member of the Dental Council of India which might have resulted in the business and not a fair decision would have been taken, as the party involved must have been partial towards their organization and as the next elections are on the board, so hoping for reform a writ petition has been filed.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

He submits that there should be two stages of preparation for an electoral list, in stage one the date should be fixed for preparing the preliminary electoral list and then he says that there should be at least thirty days for the public to raise objections to the preliminary electoral list and then he also suggested to publish both the preliminary and the final list in both English and local newspaper which has a wide circulation in the state of Maharashtra, he also suggests that the final list should be published on the official website of Maharashtra State Dental Council.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

Defendant has presented no contentions and has positively taken everything.

JUDGMENT:

The court was of opinion that the petitioner is correct in suggesting a two-stage preparation of the electoral list and then publishing it in both the newspapers and also on the official website of Maharashtra State Dental Council as it will ensure a fair electoral process and will not result in any personal biasedness. The court also clarifies that the new electoral process decision is prospective and has no relation with prior elections result.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XkMLe9

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000799

-Report by Tannu

It was held by the Delhi high court in the case of GAGAN KHOKHA V. STATE NCT OF DELHI, that under section 438 of CrPC 1973 anticipatory bail was granted to every person, but only after checking the facts and circumstances of each case.

Facts:

The judgment was made by justice Amit Sharma. This is reserved on 20 January 2023 and pronounced on 3rd February 2023. The FIR was made under section 323/342/376 on 21 .9.2020 by the complainant against the application and his family members. The complainant stated that she lives with her old-aged mother they both are harassed and threatened (physically, and mentally) by the applicant and his family members.
The complainant stated that the applicant forcefully entered in house by breaking the door and windows and she already made a complaint against him in PS Rajinder Nagar. Further alleged that one day applicant entered their house by jumping over a wall and forcing her to do sexual intercourse with him otherwise he threatened to kidnap her.
The complainant further alleged that Devendra Khokha is applicant’s father and (co-accused )of the present case, followed her and passed sexually coloured remarks.

Plaintiff’s contentions:

On 20.09.2020 complainant alleged that applicant followed her to her house and tried to have sexual intercourse with her and when she told him that she already informed the police the applicant ran away after that his family along with him threatened her again on the same day her medical examination was conducted at ram Manohar Lohia hospital, New Delhi. On 23.09.2020 complainant’s statement was recorded under section 164 of CrPC. And chargesheet was filed on 08.02.2022 under sections 354/450/454/506/509/34 of IPC.

Applicant’s contentions:

Learned counsel was present on behalf of the applicant and stated that applicant Gagan Khokha live separately from his parents and his house is very far from the complainant’s residence. It also submitted that the complainant began visiting his home around May 2019 for the care of his mother Smt. Suman khokha , suffering from lympnode asphyxia. It was produced that the complainant had a relationship with his father Devendra Khokha (applicant’s father). They had a relationship for some time and stayed together at various hotels around Delhi and all bills of hotels were attached or various voice recordings and call recordings between them.
As the opposite of this learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and disclosed the allegations against the applicant and stated that the applicant created a false story of the complainant’s affair with his father and also created false evidence (bills, invoices) tampering, fabricating with the documents including Adhar card of the complainant.
The complainant made another complaint on 17.04.2021 against the applicant and his father and FIR was made under section 323/345 registered at PS Rajinder Nagar.
The investigation of the present case is almost complete and the trial is underway. The applicant has already been interrogated and no custodial interrogation is required for him.

Judgement:

After looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case the application for anticipatory bail is allowed to the applicant. Because of arrest with the present case FIR, the applicant is released after filing a personal bond of 50,000 rupees with some terms and conditions:
●The applicant is not to leave India without Court’s permission
●The applicant is not to tamper with evidence
●The application has to give all his mobile numbers to investigating officer
●If the applicant tried to temper with evidence then bail shall be cancelled.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40F8bpd

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000766

-Report by Sanya Luthra

The case Pawan Arora vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) deals with the petitioner being liable for keeping the substances for which he didn’t possess a suitable license which was considered unlawful and because of this the petitioner has been in custody since 4th August 2020 and Trial Court has also rejected the bail application and observed that the firm did not possess a such license which authorised them to sell those substances.

FACTS:

As a result of some secret information, a raid was conducted in the Jhuggis of Kamla Nehru Camp Kirti Nagar, New Delhi by the Narcotic Cell and because of that raid on the night of 17th and 18th June 2020 when the raid was conducted a huge amount of the consignment of psychotropic substance Tramadol, Nitrazepam based tablets and Codeine based syrups were recovered from the godown situated there. When police inquired about the same then Shravan Kumar (who was there at the time of the raid) revealed that the medicines of the godown belonged to the petitioner and his manager Chander Shekhar. With this an FIR was lodged regarding the same and Shravan Kumar was arrested at that time, later on, it was revealed that the petitioner and his manager had the office of the same substance, later on, the petitioner and his manager were also arrested, further, it was held that the license to sell and possess medicines was of Chander Shekhar. So now it is up to Delhi High Court to check the liability of the three people involved and also to grant bail or not.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was put forward by the petitioner that the authenticity of the secret information is doubtful and the petitioner also argued that the license to sell the following substance was there with the petitioner so he was lawful in selling those and it was also stated that these substances do not fall within Schedule I of the NDPS Act hence compliance to Chapter VII A of the NDPS Rules 1985 is not required. Instead, they fall under Schedule H-1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Schedule H-1 has been issued under Rules 65 and 97 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the said substances which have been recovered and have been attributed to the petitioner, fall under Sr.No.20 (Codeine), No.36 (Nitrazepam) and No.45 (Tramadol), so they were emphasizing that they possess a lawful license for everything and can’t be said to conduct unlawful activities.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel from the state argued that the FSL report which has arrived also proves that the substances they were carrying include substances which they were not supposed to be sold or possessed by anyone, that’s why they were having the unlawful substances and should be punished for the same, also the license which they were having was not eligible to possess such substances.

JUDGMENT:

The Delhi High Court held that at this stage when a trial has to be conducted and will take much time and 37 witnesses have to be examined and prima facie it does seem violation of license rules and not of illegal stocking and sale of substances, without a license, so the petitioner can be released on regular bail and therefore he is released on regular bail with the sum amount of 1,00,000 as bond and two sureties with certain conditions which are that he will not leave the country, will provide his all mobile numbers, permanent address, join the investigation and will appear before the court when called.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3DHbrX1

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000688

-Report by Shreya Gupta

In the case of UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. M/S KALRA ELECTRICALS, the two parties Delhi University and M/S Kalra Electricals were the former was the petitioner and the latter was the respondent. The dispute between the parties arose from a work contract and the dispute was referred to the arbitration for settlement where the arbitrator ordered the petitioner to pay rupees 20 lakhs for other 44 contracts which were not referred to it.

FACTS:

The case was filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, of 1966. The dispute arose from the work contract dated 09.06.2005. There was no dispute regarding the other 44 contracts between the parties. The dispute was regarding the sum of Rs. 92,101.25. It was referred to arbitration in view of clause 25.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The petitioner’s advocate contends whether the arbitral tribunal can provide relief for the case that has not been referred to it. She contends that the awarded sum was time-barred. She further states about section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 which states that “the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside”. She contended that the relief provided under the other 44 contacts to the respondent was not disputed and the respondent would have filed a claim under it if that was the case.

The court has separated the subject work contract from all other contracts and therefore it was beyond the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. She further in support stated some of the previous cases- Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), MSK Projects India (JV) Limited vs. the State of Rajasthan and Another, State of Goa vs. Praveen Enterprises, Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd, Indus Biotech Private Limited vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund (Earlier Known as Kotak India Venture Limited) and Others5 and DLF Home Developers Limited vs. Rajapura Homes Private Limited and Another.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The respondent’s advocate stated that the arbitrator was well within his jurisdiction because the case arose regarding the other 44 contracts from the subject contract and that the petitioner paid for it maliciously. He stated that the assistant engineer gave the letter to the arbitrator to give orders for the other 44 contracts as well.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that the payment of Rs. 93,033 is not due and is in order and so DU should deduct any amount in payment to KE. The court ordered DU to make the pending payments of 20lakh at 9% per annum interest to KE from the date of raising the bill to the date of actual payment. The court stated that the award of Rs. 20 lakhs regarding the other 44 contracts were out of the arbitral jurisdiction and is set aside. The court further stated that the arbitrator fell foul of Section 34 (2) (a) (ⅳ) which is impermissible in law as it caused patent illegality. The order of arbitration was set aside from the other contracts and was followed for the subject contract. The court stated in its order “I find that since there is no fraud committed by KE and since the contracts are not inter-related it was wrong and illegal on part of DU to withhold the amount of Rs 20 Lakh in 44 contracts for settling an amount of Rs.92,033/- or Rs. 93,688/-or even both related to just one or two contracts”.

–Report by Hans Rathi

The High Court of Delhi recently held in the case of TARUN DUTT versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. It stated that an undertrial accused cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. The court reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the accused person against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. The Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan presided over the case.

Facts:

An FIR was registered on a complaint of Shri Matadeen Gora, who alleged to have been dishonestly induced on the pretext of receiving the insurance policy bonus amount and the insurance gratuity value on the lapsed insurance policies from the year 2013 till date. He claimed that a group of people had called him from different mobile numbers claiming to be senior officials from the insurance regulatory body. They induced him by stating that the unclaimed insurance amount can be released to the complainant. On the allurement, he deposited a sum of ₹ 80 lakhs and another sum of ₹ 39 lakhs at different times. The chargesheet has already been filed in the present case. It was found that most of the money was transferred to the accounts of accused persons including one main accused herein. In a disclosure statement made by one of the accused, the present applicant was arrested on 14.01.2021. The applicant had joined the other accused persons – Arvind and Sunil, as partners in a fake insurance bonus scam and has cheated innocent victims/persons on the pretext of receiving a huge insurance policy bonus. The applicant is alleged to be the main caller who induced the complainant and impersonated himself as Senior Director of Income Tax and MCA. The co-accused Sunil was admitted on bail by an order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned ASJ and the co-accused Arvind was granted bail by this Court by order dated 28.02.2022, whereas one co-accused person Ratnesh Chauhan is stated to be released on interim bail granted by the learned ASJ by order dated 28.04.2022. The present appeal is filed by the main accused still in custody under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0012/2021 dated 08.01.2021 registered at Vasant Kunj. 

Petitioner’s Contentions 

Learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was in the employment of the main accused and has been falsely implicated in the case. 13. He further submits that all the other four co-accused have been already enlarged on bail and despite that the applicant is languishing in jail and his application for grant of bail was dismissed by the Trial Court on an erroneous presumption that the applicant is likely to tinker with the ongoing investigation. In the present case, even though the FIR was registered way back in January 2021 and the chargesheet was filed long back, still even as per the prosecution there is a major part of the investigation which is still in progress. Therefore, the trial is not likely to proceed and will take a long period of time before it gets over. The Applicant is in custody for almost 2 years and has a family to look after, including a six-year-old daughter and an eleven months old son. 15. He further submits that when all the main accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further incarceration and he is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

Respondent Contentions

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the gravity of the offense and the manner in which the accused persons are found to have cheated the complainant, disentitles the Applicant of any discretion.

Judgment

The court in the present case held that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. The speedy trial in the present case does not seem a possibility. Keeping the applicant in further incarceration would cause deprivation of his right to legal defence. It further reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the applicant against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. Therefore, the court directed the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to some terms and conditions.

–Report by Anjali Pandey

Without commenting further on the merits of the case, keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for a grant of regular bail. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by way of seeking cancellation of bail. It is also made clear that the observations made in the present case are only to consider the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

FACTS:

The FIR was registered on a complaint made by the father of the deceased, Shri Sarvesh Kumar, alleging that the son of the applicant, Sonu was married to the deceased, Neha, who committed suicide on 19.09.2021, due to harassment and torture, being caused by her husband, Sonu, and his family members, including the applicant, Ram Ashre. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused, husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who has been specifically named by the complainant are in judicial custody. He submits that no role has been alleged to the applicant and a vague allegation has been made that the entire family of the husband was responsible for the dowry death.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused, husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who has been specifically named by the complainant are in judicial custody. He submits that no role has been alleged to the applicant and a vague allegation has been made that the entire family of the husband was responsible for the dowry death.

He further submits that the learned Trial Court, by order dated 12.11.2021, has already granted pre-arrest bail to the brother-in-law of the deceased, specifically noting that the prime witness, Anisha, whose statement has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution, had only named the husband, Sonu, the mother-in-law, Maya Devi, and she had also specifically said in the statement that the deceased did not take anyone else’s name.

JUDGMENT:

Without commenting further on the merits of the case, keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for a grant of regular bail.

The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- (rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on the following conditions:a) He shall under no circumstance leave Delhi without informing the concerned IO / SHO.b) He shall not take adjournment and attend the Trial Court proceedings on every date.c) He shall join and cooperate in further investigation.d) The applicant shall not, in any manner, try to contact any of the witnesses.e) He shall provide his mobile number to the investigating officer (IO) concerned/SHO concerned at the time of release which shall be kept in always working conditions.

In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by way of seeking cancellation of bail.

-Report by Deep Shikha

In the case of Sorin Group Italia S.R.L vs. Neeraj Garg, it was held that when the dispute is non-arbitrable, it will be adjudicated by the court and not by the Arbitration. And it is upon the discretion of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to which competent court leading to the present application being made successful.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sorin, the plaintiff, entered into a Sole Distribution Agreement with the defendant to supply certain goods. Sorin supplied the goods as per the agreement and issued three invoices to the defendant. Since the defendant failed to make full payment for the goods purchased, this led to the present suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of money.

In the course of the hearing, the defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for seeking leave to defend. When the defendant was given the liberty to file an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which gives the power to judicial authority to refer the parties to the arbitration. He lifted up the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which led to the present application being issued for this case.

As per the agreement between both parties, the rules set out are under Article 15 of the Memorandum of Understanding. As per Clause 1 of Article 15, the choice of law is being considered. It says if any dispute arose, it shall be governed in accordance with the laws of Italy and the rules of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods and the place would be Milan, Italy. According to Clause 2 of Article 15, dispute resolution laws are mentioned which says that if disputes arise between parties relating to grounds of termination or termination or for potential claims for indemnification or compensation thereof, and if this dispute is not resolved within 60 days from the dispute, it will be submitted to final and binding Arbitration with current Commercial Arbitration Rules of the Chamber of Commerce Milan, by three arbitrators. The language would be exclusively English. The other disputes are to be adjudicated in the courts of Milan, Italy. Even as per the agreement, the plaintiff will have sole discretion to invoke the jurisdiction of any competent court.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff contended that as per the terms of the agreement only the termination dispute was to be resolved by the Arbitration. In this case, the dispute is about unpaid invoices not about the termination clause, therefore, the dispute cannot be adjudicated by Arbitration. And as per the agreement, a plaintiff has the sole discretion for the right to invoke the jurisdiction of any competent courts. As per the agreement, the disputes to be arbitrated are not the present dispute. It says that ‘excepted matters’ will be adjudicated by the court. In the present case since the dispute is about unpaid invoices, it will term an excepted matter.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant contended that since the dispute is of recovery of money which is covered under the aforesaid arbitration clause under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As per the agreement, a case can be filed in any court having competent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case. They even contended that they have counted claims that they want to be adjudicated in Arbitration and not in front of judicial authorities. In the Vidya Drolia case, it was held that the court may interfere at Section 8 or 11 when the dispute is ex-facie certain or the disputes are non-arbitrable. The limited view of the court is to check and protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is non-arbitrable. When the dispute is arbitrable, the dispute will be adjudicated by Arbitration. 

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the dispute in the present case comes within the ambit of ‘excepted matters’ which is unpaid invoices. Therefore, the present suit is maintainable before this court. In the present case, the issue is with regard to the non-arbitrability of the dispute and not with regard to the Agreement being null and void with reference to the clause of the sole discretion of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to the competent court.

-Report by Gourav Jain

The Delhi High Court in BALWANT SINGH DHAMRAIT & OTHERS V. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHER, decided that even if you pay rent on time and according to the conditions set by the owner of the property, you can’t become the legal occupant if the owner has shown his wish to evict you after the due date.

Facts

The property was given on lease to the SBI for a term of 10 years. For the first five years of the lease, the monthly rent was Rs. 3,21,000/-. After five years, as in the Deed, the monthly rent was increased by 25% to Rs.4,01,250. The SBI paid Rs. 19,26,000/- as six months’ advance rent at the start of the lease. The lease was renewable for a further five years on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the parties. Balwant Singh and others issued a letter dated 20th June 2012 to the SBI stating that they are in need of the property and the SBI should vacate the property on the expiry of the lease. A reply on 18th February 2013 was received from the SBI saying that the bank intends to continue the lease with the consent of Balwant Singh and others. In the reply, the SBI also requested Balwant Singh and others for a meeting in this regard. Later on, an offer for extending the lease for a further period of 5 years was given by Balwant Singh and others to the SBI. In the bank’s letter dated 20th September 2013, Balwant Singh and others sent their bid dated 23rd September 2013, offering the suit property for a fresh lease at a monthly rent of Rs. 22 lacs. No mutual agreement ever happened between parties for renewal of the Deed. The term of the Lease Deed expired on 12th November 2013 and the SBI was liable to evict the property. The SBI issued a letter saying that the bank is looking for a suitable space for shifting and till then the bank would do their work on the same property. The SBI deposited a sum of Rs. 34,50,750/- from 13th November 2013 to 31st July 2014 @ Rs. 4,01,250/- per month, in the account of Balwant Singh and others.

The present suit was filed by Balwant Singh and others for the eviction of the defendant Bank from the mentioned premises and recovery of damages.

Defendant’s Contention

Balwant Singh and others have no right to end the tenancy of the SBI. As per Clause II(j) of the Lease Deed, the SBI is to be given the lease for further 5 years after the expiry of the period of 10 years. The SBI is in possession of the property as a tenant and has regularly paid rent to the plaintiffs.

In the suit, the relief is claimed based on the area of the suit property measuring 5567.4 sq. ft, whereas the measurement of the same in the Lease Deed is 4729 sq.ft. The SBI informed the plaintiffs during their visit to the bank that the bank wants to eradicate the clause so that it can increase the tenancy period to 5 years, they further tried to mutually settle the terms for the extension of the lease for 5 years. 

SBI contended that the plaintiffs were liable to refund the security amount of Rs. 19,26,000/- back to them.

Judgment

In this case, the Lease Deed expired on 12th November 2013 and the possession was handed over by the SBI to the plaintiffs on 30th June 2016. Therefore, the mesne profits have to be considered for 31 months 17 days. None of the lease deeds or other evidence placed on record by Balwant Singh and Others can be the basis for deciding mesne profits in respect of the property. Therefore, the mesne profits have to be decided based on the last paid rent by the SBI to Balwant Singh and Others. As per the Lease Deed dated 13th November 2003 between the parties, the lease was to be renewed after 5 years with 25% increase of the last rent. Applying the same principle of increasing rent at the rate of 25% after 5 years, the plaintiffs would be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of 25% over the last rent for the period of 13th November 2013 to 12th November 2014. Following the rules set by the Court in the previous judgments (like, Sneh Vaish & Anr. v. State Bank of Patiala, 182 (2012) DLT 153; M.C. Agrawal and Ors. v. Sahara India and Ors., 183 (2011) DLT 105 and; Indian Tourism Development Corporation v. Anil Kumar Khanna, MANU/DE/0935/2016), the plaintiffs would be granted an increase in mesne profits by 15% every year on the amount. 

Hence, the Defendant Bank was liable to pay the damages to the Plaintiffs.