It is necessary to bear in mind that the Respondent has already filed a Suit for possession and other reliefs including recovery of licence fee and damages etc. against the Petitioner in the Small Causes Court. The Petitioner claims that as the security deposit paid by it has not been refunded by the Respondent it is entitled to continue with possession of the licenced premises. Considering the area and location of the licenced premises it is undisputed that the value of the licenced premises is several times more than the claim of the Petitioner for security deposit. In such circumstances at least at this
stage when the Petitioner is continuing in possession of the premises in question, I do not see any justification for granting any emergent interim measures or orders as against the Respondent for securing the claim of the Petitioner. Being in possession of the premises, the claim of the Petitioner is as on today substantially secured. As on today, no case is made out for grant of interim measures as prayed for in the Petition. However, if the Petitioner in future relinquishes the possession of the premises to the Respondent, the Petitioner may have a prima facie case for applying for interim measures against the Respondent in terms of the prayers made in this Petition. 24 Hence, while disposing off this Petition, I deem it necessary to grant a specific liberty to the Petitioner to make an Application for interim measures in case the Petitioner relinquishes the possession of the premises in question to the Respondent
Bombay High Court
Bnp Paribas Securities India ... vs Cable Corporation Of India Ltd on 7 May, 2012
Bench: G. S. Godbole
