Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the case Metro Marins & Anr. vs. Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.:

• Case Citation and Details The case is Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2004, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 10-9-2004, arising from the Calcutta High Court. The court consisted of Judges N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha, and A.K. Mathur. (!) (!) (!)

• Subject Matter and Legal Issue The case concerns Civil Law regarding Injunctions, specifically the grant of an interim mandatory injunction in a suit for possession where the appellant is alleged to be a licensee whose license period has expired. The relevant laws cited are Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]

• Facts of the Case The respondent filed a suit for possession alleging the appellant was a licensee and that the license had expired. The appellant filed an application for a judgment on admission and an interim mandatory injunction to hand over possession. The Single Judge dismissed this application, stating that granting it would amount to decreeing the suit before trial. An appeal was filed against this dismissal, where the Appellate Bench reversed the order and granted the mandatory injunction, directing the handing over of possession and the appointment of a receiver. (!) (!) (!)

• Arguments for the Appellants The appellant's counsel argued that the nature of possession was a triable issue and could not be decided before the trial. They contended that granting the injunction would violate the law laid down in Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden. They further argued that facts such as the property not being used for commercial purposes or the litigation being "luxury litigation" are irrelevant to changing the status quo. (!) (!) (!)

• Arguments for the Respondents The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal should be dismissed preliminarily because the appellant was ready and willing to hand over possession in 1998 but backed out due to an unpaid security amount. On merits, they argued that the relationship was that of licensor and licensee, the license had expired, the appellant became a trespasser, and the non-payment of rent justified the injunction. (!)

• Court's Reasoning and Holding The Supreme Court held that an interim mandatory injunction can only be granted in exceptional cases as per Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden. The Court ruled that the respondent's case did not fall under any such exception. Granting the injunction would effectively decree the suit before the trial concludes regarding the nature of the relationship. The Court deemed factors like commercial use, potential damages, or the nature of litigation irrelevant for altering possession status during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, the appointment of a receiver was also deemed unnecessary. (!) (!)

• Final Decision The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Appellate Court, and restored the order of the trial court (Single Judge). (!) (!)