Advocates:
CHANDAN RAMAMURTHI

RPC D.39383/2019

1

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.39383/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-04-2018

in SLP(C) No.8694/2014 25-04-2018 in SLP(C) No.8695/2014 25-04-2018

in SLP(C) No.8696/2014 passed by the Supreme Court of India)

GUL @ GOERGE R. TAHILRAMANAI & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

DR. VIKRAM HINGORANI & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With IA No.167533/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW

PETITION)

Date : 29-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kameshwar Singh, Adv.

Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1

On 25 April 2018, this Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition

granted time till the end of December 2018 to the original petitioner, Kotak

Digitally signed by

CHETAN KUMAR

Date: 2022.10.01

17:31:18 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

RPC D.39383/2019

2

Mahindra Bank Limited to vacate the premises.

2

On the aspect of mesne profits, the Court passed the following order:

“Vide order dated 15.04. 2014, while issuing notice, it was

directed that the petitioner shall deposit before the trial court

compensation for the use and occupation of the premises @

R.2,00,000/- per month with effect from the date of the

impugned order. The amount so deposited was to be invested

in· a term deposit which was to enure for the benefit of the

successful party.

In view of the order passed today, the abovementioned amount

along with accrued interest is now directed to be released in

favour of respondent nos .1 to 6 (plaintiffs before the trial

court).”

3

The above direction indicates that the amount of Rs 2,00,000/- per month

which was to be deposited by the bank would be released in favour of

respondent Nos 1 to 6 to the proceedings, namely, the original plaintifs

before the trial court.

4

The review petitioners were original defindant Nos 2 and 3. They are

aggrieved by the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 25 April

2018 to the effect that the amount deposited by the bank shall be released

only to the plaintiffs.

5

The review petition has been directed to be placed in the open Court for

hearing by an order dated 24 November 2020.

6

The submissions which have been urged by Mr Jayant Bhushan, senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is set out below:

(i)

The preliminary decree issued by the trial court (Annexure P-3)

quantifies the share of defendant Nos 2 and 3 at one half. The

preliminary decree also provides that from 18 March 2008 the

plaintiffs and defendant Nos 1 to 3 shall be entitled to

RPC D.39383/2019

3

proceeds/monies/mesne profits and damages proportionate to

their respective portion of the suit property, so partitioned by

metes and bounds in terms of Exhibit C-1;

(ii)

Clause 5(d) of Exhibit C-1, which is the settlement agreement,

provides that defendant Nos 2 and 3 would be entitled to the

basement, second floor and terrace with terrace rights up to the

sky;

(iii)

The Bank was in possession of half the basement, the entire

ground floor, one-fourth of the first floor and half the second floor;

and

(iv)

In view of the above premises, the entirety of the amount of Rs

2,00,000/- per month which was deposited by the Bank cannot be

released only to the plaintiffs but could have to be released to the

parties proportionate to the area which was in their occupation, in

terms of the settlement deed, Exhibit C-1.

7

Issue notice on the application for condona