EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 29-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Interim relief-Grant of interim relief by High Court in exercise of its 
discretionary jurisdiction-Scope of interference by Supreme Court-Held, 
interference therewith not called for-Major Port Trust Act, 1963. 
Respondent constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, owned 
large plot of land. Appellants were given plot of land on a long lease. When 
period of lease came to an end, appellants made representation to respondent 
A 
B 
c 
for renewal. By a Notification dated 19.9.1996, the rent schedule ofland was 
altered. The terms of notification were that the lessee was required to pay 4 D 
•· years rent as non-refundable and non-adjustable premium in addition to the 
monthly rent; enhancement of rent every year and a clause that if such 
escalated rent is found to be lower than. the schedule rent after every fiv~ 
years, then the rent payable would be raised to the level of prevailing schedule 
rent. Aggrieved appellants challenged the vires of the said notification on the 
ground that the quantum of rent has been increased by more than 5200% E 
and as they were required to pay a huge amount by way of premium and 
security, the same was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
Single Judge of High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. On appeal, 
Division Bench of High Court upon taking into consideration, the hardship F 
which could be faced by appellant if it is directed to pay the premium as also 
the increased rent, directed them to pay enhanced interest at the rate of80% 
of the enhancement which has been enforced by the aforesaid Schedule along 
with necessary payments/deposits introduced by the said schedule and pay 
within 4 weeks, ·50% of the arrears without prejudice to their rights and 
contentions in the appeal and for the balance of rent and 50% of the arrear G 
amount, the appellants were directed to furnish bank guarantee with any 
nationalized bank. Pursuant to the said direction, appellant No.1 had paid 80% 
of the current rate and also furnis_hed bank guarantees, except the premium. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the Division Bench of 
835 
II 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SCPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A the High Court failed to take into consideration that no premium was payable 
under the Deed of Lease. Demand, therefore, on the basis of the impugned 
notification which has no statutory backing, was per se illegal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The Division Bench of the High Court exercised its 
discretionary jurisdiction in the matter of grant of interim relief. Ordinarily, 
this Court does not interfere therewith. A major part of the directions issued 
by the High Court has been complied with. The only payment which is required 
to be made by appellant is 50% of the amount of premium and furnishing of 
Bank Guarantee in respect of the rest 50%. Appellant is an industry. It 
C employs 600 persons, The High Court on consideration of the afore-mentioned 
fact passed an order which according to it would not be totally harsh. It directed 
payment of only 50% of the amount of premium. No interference with the 
said direction is made. However, appellant is directed that an adequate security 
in respect thereof to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Original Side of the 
D Higil Court, be furnished in place of furnishing bank guarantee for the rest 
of 50% of amount of premium. In the event, Respondents are held not to be 
entitled to the entire increased rent or the amount of premium, the payment 
of the amount deposited towards security in terms of the said notification as 
also the demand, as contained in letter dated 13.7.2001 by Respondent shall 
be subject to the condition that in the event Respondents are found liable to 
E get refund of any amount, the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. 
(841-E-H; 842-A) 
F 
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board a/Trustees, Port a/Mumbai and Anr., 
(200413 sec 214, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4332 of2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2005 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in G.A. No. 54 of2005 in APO/T No. 7/2005 arising out of W.P. 
No. 1690/200 I. 
G 
Ranjit Kumar, Bhargava V. Desai, Anil Kher, Kapil Kher and Rahul Gupta 
for the Appellants. 
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Anuradha Priyadarshini and Indra Sawhney for 
the Respondt

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.