pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2142 of 2007. IN SUIT NO.1506 of 2007. State Bank of Hyderabad ..Plaintiff. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Defendants. Mr.Harihar Bhave a/w. Ms. Manisha Pant for the Plaintiff. Mr.P.G.Lad, AGP for the Defendants. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. The suit is filed for specific performance of the alleged agreement to lease the premises admeasuring 3847 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.8950/- per sq. ft. for the term of 99 years less one day. 2. Defendant No.1 by an advertisement dated 8.10.2003 intimated its intention to lease the suit premises on a long term basis. It was stipulated that tenders of less than Rs.8500/- per sq. ft. would not be considered. Interested parties were directed to collect the booklet containing the terms from the office on presentation of the demand draft of Rs. 1000/-. 3. The plaintiff accordingly submitted its technical bid and price bid in two separate envelopes along with the bankers cheque in the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 4. By a letter dated 5.11.2003 defendant No.1 accepted the plaintiffs tender at the rate of Rs. 8950/- per sq. ft. The aggregate cost, therefore, was Rs.3,44,27,965/-. The plaintiff was called upon to deposit the sum of Rs.86,06,991/- being 25% of the cost. After adjusting the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- paid earlier, the balance amount to be paid was Rs. 61,06,991/-. 5. The plaintiff under cover of its letter dated 15.12.2003 paid the sum of Rs.55,77,375/- and stated that the balance amount would be paid upon the compliance of certain terms mentioned therein. 6. Thereafter, joint measurements were taken by the parties. Further the plaintiff addressed several letters dated 19.12.2003, 30.12.2003 and 19.2.2004 requesting the defendant to forward the final agreement and to indicate the date for signing the same. The draft of the lease agreement was with the first defendant. The first defendant by a letter dated 1.3.2004 stated that there was a balance sum still to be paid by the plaintiff upon the joint measurement having been finalized. Accordingly, under cover of a letter dated 3.3.2004 the plaintiff made payment of Rs.5,29,616/-. 7. Thereafter, once again correspondence was addressed by the plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to perform the agreement, but to no avail. The plaintiff also addressed letters through its advocates calling upon the defendants to perform the agreement. 8. By a letter dated 2.3.2007 the defendants confirmed that they had received a sum of Rs. 86,06,991/- and merely stated that as per the order of the Government the said amount was returned to the plaintiffs. No reasons were furnished as to why the amount was being returned. 9. It was submitted before me however that there is no concluded agreement. It is difficult to accept this contention at this stage in view of the above facts. The bid made on the two envelopes basis was accepted by/on behalf of the defendants by the Assistant Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. It was made on the terms and conditions contained in the booklets referred to in the said advertisement dated 8.10.2003. 10. It was then submitted that the Assistant Secretary, Government of Maharashtra had wrongly accepted the plaintiff s bid. It is contended that he ought to have called for fresh bid in view of the fact that there was only one bid. In support of this contention, however, no documents have been furnished and no rules or government resolutions have been relied upon. I will presume, however, that there are internal notings/circulars which required him to do so. Prima facie, atleast the plaintiff cannot be faulted for the same. Further, in the letter dated 2.3.2007 the plaintiff was not even furnished any reasons for the change in the stand of the Government. 11. The reliance upon clause 27 of the terms and conditions reserving unto the defendant the right to accept or reject any tender without assigning reasons is of no assistance. This is in view of the fact that the plaintiff s tender had already been accepted as stated above. 12. It is necessary, therefore to protect the plaintiff s right in respect of the suit property. I am however, not inclined to permit the plaintiff to occupy the premises on the basis that the plaintiff would succeed at the hearing of the suit in obtaining specific performance. It was suggested that the plaintiff ought to be permitted to occupy the premises on the terms and conditions of the said acceptance of its offer. Mr. Lad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants stated that the defendants in any event intend letting out the premises as the funds are required for the objects of the defendant No.2, namely the Kala Academy Department of Cultural Affairs. It would therefore serve no useful purpose by merely keeping the property unused. This would be to the detriment of all the parties, especially the defendants. 13. The interest of justice would therefore be served by appointing the Court Receiver and directing the Court Receiver to appoint an agent on the usual terms and conditions and granting the parties liberty to bid for the agency of the Court Receiver. In the circumstances, the notice of motion is disposed of by passing the following order. ORDER 14(i). The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed Receiver of the suit premises. The Court Receiver shall appoint an agent after inviting bids from third parties in the usual manner. In the event of the plaintiff s bid being the highest or in the event of the plaintiff matching the highest bid, the Court Receiver shall in the first instance appoint the plaintiff as his agent. In that event, the plaintiff shall pay royalty but shall not be called upon to furnish security. ii. The defendant is permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited subject to their filing an undertaking to bring back the same or any part thereof, if so directed at the final hearing of the suit with such rate of interest as may be directed by the Court and without compelling the plaintiff to adopt execution proceeding for the same. iii. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of.