1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.979 OF 2010 Marico Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. The Bombay Xaverian Corporation P.Ltd. .. Defendants Ms.Soumya Shrikrishna i/b M/s.Little and Co. for the plaintiffs Mr.V.A.Almeida for the defendants CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : September 29, 2010 P.C. : 1. These are the consent terms which are drawn in a suit for specific performance. The prayer in the suit reads as under: (a) “ This Hon ble Court be pleased to declare that the ’ Purchase Option Agreement dated 26th March, 1974 executed by the Defendant in favour of the said M.B.Desai and others and their nominees and assigns and the benefit thereof assigned in favour of the plaintiff is valid, subsisting and binding upon the Defendant and that the Plaintiff has validly exercised the 2 option thereunder to purchase the Defendant s interest ’ in suit plot; (b) This Hon ble Court be pleased to order and direct ’ the Defendant to specifically perform the Purchase Option Agreement dated 26th March, 1974 in favour of the Plaintiff including the performance of all the obligations of the Defendant as set out therein and to execute the Conveyance / Sale Deed for transferring the suit plot by securing the necessary approval / permission in respect thereof; (c) That for the aforesaid purpose, this Hon ble Court ’ be pleased to order and direct the Defendant to do all acts, deeds, matters and things, procured or required consent / approval and execute all documents as may be required for the effective performance of the said Option Purchase Agreement dated 26th March, 1974.” 2. Admittedly, the defendant before this court is a public trust subject to and governed by the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Consent Terms are tendered by plaintiffs and defendants. Considering the inter se dispute is arising out of the above exercised option by the plaintiffs which is under an agreement dt.26.3.74 in relation to immovable property of the defendant trust which was leased in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs stated that under an arrangement with the predecessor in title, the 3 purchase option is exercised for renewal of the subject lease and which arrangement has been approved by the trust and now there is a conveyance drawn which conveyance is referred to in the plaint. 3. The consent terms record that there is a registered deed of assignment cum conveyance which is annexed as Annexure 'F' to the plaint. By this the plaintiff becomes the lessee of the plot belonging to the trust. 4. There is no objection to the arrangement being recorded by the court subject to the approval and sanction of the Charity Commissioner. The attention of the parties was invited to section 36(1) (a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and a judgment of this court in the case of Chandrabhan Chunnilal Gour vs. Dr.Shrawan Kumar Khunnolal Gour and another reported in AIR 1980 BOMBAY 48 which speaks of previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner. Therefore, the parties have no objection to both documents, which are stated to be executed, to be examined by the Charity Commissioner and it is subject to his sanction that the Consent Terms and any order made in that behalf will take effect. 5. It is on the express understanding as recorded above and subject to section 36 of the B.P.T. Act, 1950 that the consent terms duly signed by the plaintiffs and defendant trust through their authorized signatory Shri Alwin Saldana trustee of the defendant, who has signed the terms after due authorization from the trust are being taken on record. Having understood the terms as 4 above and knowing fully well the consequences therefrom, it is requested that this court should take them on record and make an order in furtherance thereof. 6. Considering that the trust and the plaintiffs are agreeable to abide by all the provisions of law, that I am satisfied that there is no impediment in taking the terms on record and disposing of the suit in furtherance thereof. 7. Accordingly, the consent terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Suit disposed of accordingly with the clarification as above. Notice of Motion does not survive in the light of the order made today. Refund of court fee as per rules. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )