Bombay High Court
CAS/1681/2009 of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA , PUNE Vs 1. KANTILAL B, SHAH AND ORS on 26 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1681 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2008 Central Bank of India .. Applicant V/s. Mr. Kantilal B. Shah & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Rajesh Shettia for the Petitioner. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA,J. [VACATION JUDGE]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1681 OF 2009INSECOND APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2008
Central Bank of IndiaV/s.Mr. Kantilal B. Shah & Ors.Mr. Rajesh Shettia for the Petitioner.
.. Applicant.. Respondents
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA,J. [VACATION JUDGE]
DATED : DECEMBER 26, 2009.
P.C. :
The present Application is taken out by the Applicant Bank seeking time to surrender the suit premises to the Respondents by three months i.e. upto 31[st] March, 2010.
2. The Appellant had filed a Second Appeal seeking inter-alia that the Judgment and order dated 22[nd] July, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 380 of 2008 be set aside and/or quashed.
3. Minutes of Order dated 30[th] January, 2009 were filed in the said Second Appeal. Pursuant to the said Minutes of the Order an undertaking was filed with this Court by the Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank to the effect that the Applicant shall vacate the entire property in dispute by 31[st] December, 2009 and hand over vacant possession of the same to the Respondents.
4. It is now submitted on behalf of the Applicant Bank that after several meetings and negotiations the Appellant have finalized a premises and issued a sanction letter dated 20[th ]November, 2009. However, the execution of the Deed of lease with the said party is pending. The opinion of the Structural Engineer is also awaited. For this purpose the Applicant Bank be allowed to retain the premises for a further period of three months from 1[st] January, 2010.
5. As stated earlier, time was granted to the Appellant Bank in January 2009 to vacate the suit premises. The Appellant Bank had almost one full year to vacate the said suit premises and hand over vacant possession to the Respondents. To this effect an undertaking was given to this Court by the Applicant Bank which was accepted. The Appellant Bank therefore had enough time to find an alternate premises and shift therein on or before 31[st] December, 2009. Undertakings given to the Court would be meaningless if parties are allowed to go back on their word and obtain extension of time, only because they worked at their own pace as regards looking out for alternate premises. This is clear from the fact that though the Minutes of the Order were signed on 30[th] January, 2009, the Applicant Bank took three months to take the first step i.e. to advertise in the local Newspaper their requirement for an alternate premises. In view thereof, the Application seeking extension is rejected.
6. The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents states the Respondents are willing to consider the request of extension of time by a period of two months provided the Appellant Bank is willing to pay rent for the same at market value which would be an approximate amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rs. Two Lakhs ) per month. The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant states that he has no instructions to accept the offer made by the Respondents. Needless to add that despite rejection of the present Application made by the Applicant Bank, parties shall be free to mutually enter into any arrangement pertaining to the suit premises.
(S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)