Bombay High Court
IDBI BANK LTD THRU OFFICERversusMARIGOLD MANUFACTURES LTD
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court upheld the lower courts' order to deposit the arrears of licence fees, but permitted withdrawal at the lower rate of Rs.9,80,197.69 per month plus taxes and extended the payment deadline.
Summary
The High Court considered a writ petition by IDBI Bank seeking relief from an order directing it to deposit licence fee arrears of Rs.1,85,82,164 under Order XV‑A of the CPC. The bank argued that the actual area of the premises, as measured jointly, was less than the 11,500 sq.ft. stipulated in the licence agreement, and therefore it should pay rent based on the smaller area at Rs.9,80,197.69 per month. The landlord contended that the bank had been paying the higher rate for 22 years without objection. The Court declined to decide the substantive rent dispute, leaving it to the trial court, but upheld the direction to deposit the arrears subject to a rider allowing withdrawal at the lower rate plus taxes and extended the time for payment by four weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the direction to deposit licence fee arrears under Order XV‑A of the CPC is appropriate pending determination of the rent amount.
- Whether the bank is liable to pay licence fees based on the actual measured area of the premises or the area specified in the licence agreement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 15(A), Order XV-A Rule 1
Subjects
- licence agreement
- rent arrears
- measurement dispute
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order XV-A
- high court
- writ petition
- deposit of arrears
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 902-WP-11653-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11653 OF 2026
IDBI BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
OFFICER MR. DAYANAND ILAKE ...PETITIONER
Versus
MARIGOLD MANUFACTURES LTD. ...RESPONDENT
Mr. Girin N. Pandit, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Surendra R. Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The learned Trial Court has directed the Petitioner to
deposit rentals in terms of the application made under Order 15(A)
of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as computed in paragraph 57 at
page 68 of the paper-book, which is noted below :-
“57. In view of above all discussions, I am therefore, of the view
that, regardless of the facts, this is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction to pass an order for deposit of arrears of license
Page 1 of 5
11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 902-WP-11653-2026.docx
fees/occupation charges under Rule 1 of Order XV-A of the
Code. In that view of the matter, provision under Order XV-A of
the Code is clearly attracted in the present case and the
defendant bank becomes liable to deposit arrears of license fees
including GST to the tune of total Rs. 1,85,82,164/- (Rupees
One Crore Eighty Five Lakh Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred
and Sixty Four only) for the period from 01/12/2020 till
31/01/2025 to be paid to the plaintiff company as per the claim
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff company is also entitled to get each
Rs. 14,41,813/- (Rs. 12,21,875/- per month as per the
agreement + GST of Rs. 2,19,938/- Rs. 14,41,813/- each for the
period of February, 2025 and March, 2025 from the defendant
bank as the plaintiff company appears to have received the
possession in the month of March, 2025. However, as discussed
above, the plaintiff company is not entitled to get any amount
towards the damages as the same is matter of trial.”
3. The Defendant-Bank is directed to deposit an differential
amount of Rs. 1,85,82,164/- towards the licence fees, occupation
charges including GST for a period from 1st December, 2022 to 31st
January, 2025 and also at the rate of Rs. 14,41,813/- for the period
from February 2025 and March 2025.
4. It is not disputed before me that the suit premises were
vacated by the Petitioner on 15th March, 2025.
Page 2 of 5
11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 902-WP-11653-2026.docx
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order
passed by the learned Small Causes Court dated 17 th March, 2026 in
interim application at Exhibit-9 was challenged before the Revisional
Court/Appellate Bench of the learned Small Causes Court and the
Appellate Bench also dismissed the same.
6. Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submits that the area of suit premises in
terms of the Leave and Licence Agreement is 11500 sq.ft. He submits
that joint measurement of the suit property was carried out and it
was noticed that the area of suit premises is 9225.39 sq.ft. He
submits that the suit premises are of lesser area than what is stated
in the Leave and Licence Agreement and as such, corresponding he is
liable only to pay the rentals in terms of the size of suit premises. He
submits that he has been paying rentals of the suit premises from 1 st
May, 2022 till 20th December, 2023 @ Rs. 9,80,197.69 per month,
corresponding to the size of the premises, whereas the contention of
the landlord is that the Leave and Licence Agreement provides for
the licence fees at the rate of Rs. 14,41,813/- (inclusive of the GST).
Page 3 of 5
11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 902-WP-11653-2026.docx
7. It is the contention of Petitioner that if an invoice is raised
corresponding to the size occupied by the Petitioner, they are willing
to pay the amount.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a joint
measurement report at Exhibit-2, page 243 of the application.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord submits that
the Petitioner-Bank has been paying rentals for last 22 years at the
rate mentioned in the Leave and Licence Agreement and that they
have never objected to the size of premises.
10. This Court would not go into the issue as regards the
liability to pay the rentals as per size of the premises or as provided
in the Leave and Licence Agreement and render any finding thereon
and leave it for the learned Trial Court to decide this. However, the
directions issued by the Courts below to deposit, is maintained by
this Court subject to the rider that the withdrawal be permitted @
Rs. 9,80,197.69 per month plus taxes. Time to deposit the
outstanding amounts, is extended by four weeks.
Page 4 of 5
11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 902-WP-11653-2026.docx
11. With the above observations, the present Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
12. All the issues are left open to be contested before the
learned Trial Court.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.09.18
20:28:53 +0530
Page 5 of 5
11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.