O.A. Nos. 273, 275, 276, 280 and 281 of 2005. Case: Indusind Bank Vs Vineet Aggarwal and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberO.A. Nos. 273, 275, 276, 280 and 281 of 2005
CounselFor Appellant: Akbar Rizvi, Adv., i/b., M. Dhruv and Co. and For Respondents: D.P. Desai, Adv., i/b., Mahesh Jani and Co.
JudgesK.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
IssueRecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 2; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 6(1)
CitationIV (2006) BC 205
Judgement DateSeptember 11, 2006
CourtMumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals


K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer

  1. Heard the learned Counsel.

  2. This common order disposes of applications taken out by the defendants in the above noted matters contending lack of subjectwise jurisdiction in this Tribunal. The applications involve common question of facts and law and are therefore heard and decided together.

  3. The defendant No. 1 in the matters is tenant of certain premises from M/s. Kaya Sales P. Ltd., 'Sanghrajka House', (formerly called 'Nair Building'), 482, Sandhurst Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400004. The defendant No. 1 had in turn given the respective premises to the applicant Bank on leave and license basis for a period of 11 years. In lieu thereof, the Bank had given interest free security deposit of the amounts also shown below:

                    Appln. Unit Area Date of Interest
                    No. No. in Sq. Leave and Free
                     Ft. License Security
                     Agreement Deposit
                     (In Rupees)
                    O.A. 305 334 1.12.1997 9,35,129.24
                    No. 273
                    of 2005
                    O.A 304-A 350 1.12.1997 9,79,925.86
                    No. 275
                    of 2005
                    O.A. 312 469 1.12.1997 13,13,100.65
                    No. 276
                    of 2005
                    O.A. 308 397 1.12.1997 11,11,515.90
                    No. 280
                    of 2005
                    O.A. 302-A 459 1.12.1997 9,36,360.00
                    No. 281
                    of 2005

    4. The agreements inter alia provide for phasewise escalation in the license fee. The leave and license agreements were terminable with 3 months notice. On the licensors' failure to repay the security deposit, the Bank was entitled to interest @20% p.a. The Bank terminated the leave and license agreement and called upon the defendants to repay the security deposit amount. Since the notice was not complied, the O.As. are filed.

  4. The defendants through these applications have contended that the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the leave and license agreement. The Small Causes Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the issue of termination of the leave and license agreement and refund of the security deposit. This ground is not availed of at the time of arguments. The other ground of the claim not constituting 'debt' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of R.D.D.B. Act more particularly because the defendants' liability, assuming that the defendants are liable, has not arisen during the course of Bank's business activity is heavily pressed into the service. The contention is that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT