NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 4491/2010

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA       APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

THE PORT TENANTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.     RESPONDENT(S) WITH

C.A. NO. 4492/2010 J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by

the judgment of the High Court.  The High Court has granted the facility of 36 installments for payment of arrears of rent and fixed interest @ 6% per annum. The party respondents herein had actually given up the challenge on the revision of rent before the High Court.  Therefore, the High Court restricted itself only to this point.   2. Mr.  Parag  P.  Tripathi,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the rate of interest should have been 15 to 18% in terms of the rate schedule fixed by the Board under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.  We do not think that this aspect of the matter has been gone into by the High Court. Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the respondent(s)  points  out  that  this  rate  was  fixed only  in  the  peculiar  facts  of  these  cases  and, therefore, the High Court apparently declined to go

1

into that aspect. 3. Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant submits that this judgment is being used as a precedent in other cases as well.  We do not think that this judgment can be used as a precedent for the purpose  of  fixation  of  rent  since  there  is  no adjudication by the High Court on that aspect. 4. Be that as it may, in view of the apprehension expressed by the learned senior counsel, we set aside the judgment of the High Court regarding fixation of interest @ 6% per annum for the arrears of rent. 5. However, having regard to the fact that these are the cases hanging between the parties for quite long and since the High Court actually wanted to give a finality, we are of the view that this Court should invoke  its  jurisdiction  under  Article  142  of  the Constitution and give a quietus to the controversy. 6. Therefore, we make it clear that since the party respondents have already paid interest at the rate fixed by the High Court there shall be no further levy. 7. Needless also to say that we are constrained to pass this order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India only in the particular facts and circumstances of these cases and this shall not be treated as a precedent.   8. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

2

9. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; JULY 27, 2017.

3

ITEM NO.101 (MM)               COURT NO.6               SECTION XVI                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 4491/2010 BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA       APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS THE PORT TENANTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.      RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. NO. 4492/2010 (XVI)

Date : 27-07-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Appellant(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,Adv. Mr. A.V. Rangam, AOR Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan,Adv. Mr. Kartik Nagarkotti,Adv.

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Sangeeta Mandal,Adv.                   For M/s Fox Mandal & Co.                   Ms. Susmita Lal, AOR

Mr. Pavan Kumar, AOR Mr. R.N. Pareek,Adv.                     

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD)                               (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER (SH)                              ASST. REGISTRAR

(Signed “Non-Reportable” Judgment is placed on the file)

4