1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3297 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2465 OF 2007 Deutsche Bank AG ..Plaintiffs. V/s. Alpex International Ltd. ..Defendants. WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3298 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2464 OF 2007 Deutsche Network Services Pvt.Ltd. ..Plaintiffs. V/s. Alpex International Ltd. ..Defendant. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Counsel a/w. Devesh Chamboowala i/b. A.T.Agarwal for Plaintiffs. Mr.D.J.Khambata with Mr.Vatsal Shah i/b. M/s.Doijode Associates for the Defendants. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Counsel for the Plaintiffs fairly accepts that the issues raised by the Plaintiffs are already answered against the Plaintiffs in the decision rendered in Loreal India Pvt.Ltd. V/s. Global Earth Loreal India Pvt.Ltd. V/s. Global Earth Loreal India Pvt.Ltd. V/s. Global Earth Properties & Developers Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. in Notice Properties & Developers Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. in Notice Properties & Developers Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. in Notice of Motion No.3062 of 2007 of Motion No.3062 of 2007 of Motion No.3062 of 2007 decided on January 17, 2008. For the same reasons, ad-interim relief as claimed by the Plaintiffs will have to be declined 2 while making it clear that the refusal of ad-interim relief will not authorise the Defendant to forcibly dispossess the Plaintiffs from the suit premises. In other words, the Defendants will be free to take possession of the suit premises by following due process of law. Till the Court of competent jurisdiction passes appropriate orders, in the proceedings likely to be resorted to by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs will continue to enjoy the suit premisses and all facilities associated thereto in the same way as provided in the leave and license agreement on discharging its obligations provided under that agreement. 2. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on the distinction made by the Counsel for the Defendants in the present case that the license was revocable one unlike in the earlier decision. 3. Needless to observe that the statement made by the Counsel for the Plaintiff is without prejudice to the rights of the Plaintiffs to carry the matter in appeal, if so advised, which will be considered on its own merits. 4. Accordingly, the Notice of Motions are disposed off on the above terms. 3 (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)