Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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

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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.