1 nms3171-08.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No. 3171 of 2008 . and Notice of Motion No.362 of 2006 in Suit No. 320 of 2006 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation .. Plaintiffs v/s. Sharan P. Khanna & Ors. ..Defendants Mr.S.U.Kamdar with Ms.S.P.Bharati for the for the Plaintiffs in support of Notice of Motion 362 of 2006 Mr.Shailesh Shah with Ms. Nina Kapadia i/b. Pandya Gandhi & Co. for the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in support of Notice of Motion No.3171 of 2008 and notice of Motion No579 of 2009 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 11th August , 2010 P.C. : 1. By Notice of Motion No 362 of 2006 the plaintiffs have sought reliefs so as to put control over the property in question so long as the suit for recovery of monies filed by the plaintiffs is pending. The defendants have taken out the motion No.3171 of 2008 seeking leave of the court to the extend leave and license 2 nms3171-08.sxw agreement in favour of Unit Trust of India. 2. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for recovery of amount as set out in the plaint. Defendants contend that they are entitled to recover from the plaintiffs certain amounts as and by way of counter claim and have filed the counter claim. Hence, as of today the dispute revolves around either payment of money to the plaintiffs or payment to the defendants in their counter claim. As of today the suit premises are sought to be linked with the present suit which is basically the suit for recovery of money. As of today, the defendants have already deposited the sum of Rs. 1,28,52,000/- and plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the said amount by furnishing simple undertaking. 3. As the aforesaid two motions were taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that now that the dispute surrounds payment of money for the premises in question need not be tagged alongwith the suit and that if this court passes an order directing the defendants to deposit the amount equivalent to 3 nms3171-08.sxw plaintiff’s claim towards interest in the suit at a reasonable rate and permit plaintiffs to withdraw the said amount on an undertaking as may be thought fit by the court, the interest of the plaintiffs will be adequately protected and the defendants could be permitted to dispose of the said premises or deal with it in any manner as they like. By this arrangement the defendants seem to suggest that the premises in question should be delinked from the dispute as regards recovery/payment of monies. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that it cannot lie in the mouth of the defendants that they should be permitted to deposit amount equivalent to claim of plaintiff at a reasonable rate when agreed rate of interest is 18% per annum. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, if the above arrangement as suggested by the defendants is put in to action the rate of interest should not be less than 18% per annum. He therefore submitted that appropriate order be passed. 5. After having considered the point in dispute, one thing is sure that 4 nms3171-08.sxw there is no need to keep the premises linked with the dispute presently pendings which concerns payment of money. The plaintiffs have been adequately secured in regard to the principal amount, namely Rs.1,28,52,000/-. If at all the plaintiffs succeed in their suit, what remains to be considered is the interest portion from the day when they surrendered the possession of the suit premises to defendants till disposal of suit on Rs.1,28,52,000/- at a specified rate. In my view, the submission advanced across the bar by the learned Counsel for the defendants that the rate of interest should be reasonable and not 18% appeals to me. Today the suit is pending along with the counter claim. Parties will have to lead evidence and claims of rival parties are yet to be placed before the Court. In such a situation, it would be proper for this Court to fix a reasonable rate of interest as suggested by the defendants and not the rate of interest at 18%, so that the defendants would deposit in the court an amount at such rate on Rs.1,28,52,000/- and on deposit of the said amount, the property can be delinked and the suit can go ahead. Needless to mention that if the plaintiffs succeed they would be able to execute the 5 nms3171-08.sxw decree in their favour. After having considered the rival submissions and the relevant rate of interest prevailing then, when the possession was surrendered and today I am inclined to observe that if interest at the rate of 12% is calculated, that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, following order is passed to dispose of the notice of motion. ORDER i) Defendants shall deposit in this court amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs.1,28,52,000/- for the period 1.7.2005 upto 31.8.2010 towards the claim of interest put up by the plaintiffs in the suit. This amount shall be deposited on or before 31.8.2010. ii) Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the same by giving an usual undertaking to the court. It is clarified that this arrangement of deposit of monies and withdrawal thereof is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Once this amount is deposited in this court, on or before 31.8.2010, ad-interim order passed in 6 nms3171-08.sxw favour of the plaintiffs on 7.3.2006 shall stand vacated and the defendants will be permitted to deal with the said property including selling the same. iii) If the defendants fail to comply with this order of deposit, the ad-interim injunction granted on 7.3.2006 shall continue to run against the defendants till disposal of the suit or till such other order is passed. iv) Both the motions are disposed of in above terms. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]