Synapse Labs PVT LTD Throu. Its Director Vishal Ashok Dhawan vs. M/S A.M. Builders And Developers And Developers Throu. Its Partner Babajan Raj Mohd Almelkar
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Synapse Labs Pvt. Limited, challenged an order dated 12th January 2023 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune. The order directed the Petitioner to deposit arrears of license fees amounting to Rs.77,75,440/- along with GST of Rs.13,99,599/-, and to continue depositing monthly license fees of Rs.4,85,965/- from 1st April 2022 onwards. This order was passed under Section 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement dated 4th May 2017, under which the Petitioner allegedly failed to pay license fees from December 2020. The Plaintiff in the suit sought eviction and payment of arrears. The Petitioner contended they had paid Rs. 80,00,000/- towards taxes and maintenance charges, but these contentions were not raised in their defense before the Trial Court.
Held
The High Court held that the Petitioner's contentions regarding payment of Rs. 80,00,000/- towards taxes and independent payment of maintenance charges were not raised in their defense before the Trial Court. The Court noted that there was no material on record before the Trial Court to substantiate the Petitioner's claim of having paid Rs. 80,00,000/- towards taxes. Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court directing the deposit of arrears of license fees and GST, and future monthly deposits. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Trial Court's order which was based on the Petitioner's contractual obligation and admitted breach of the Leave and License Agreement.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is liable to deposit arrears of license fees amounting to Rs.77,75,440/- along with GST of Rs.13,99,599/- and continue monthly deposits of Rs.4,85,965/- from 1st April 2022, as directed by the Trial Court under Section 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that they had paid Rs. 80,00,000/- towards taxes, implying this payment should offset the claimed arrears. They also contended that they had independently paid maintenance charges, which were the owner's responsibility. However, the judgment notes these contentions were not raised in the defense filed before the Trial Court. Revenue's arguments: The Respondent (Plaintiff in the suit) argued that the Petitioner was contractually obligated to pay license fees and GST as per the Leave and License Agreement, and their failure to do so constituted a breach. The Trial Court's order was based on this contractual obligation and the Petitioner's admitted failure to pay.
Sections Cited
Section 15A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9208 OF 2025 Synapse Labs Pvt. Limited .... Petitioner Vs. M/s A.M. Builders & Developers .... Respondents Mr. Shivprasad Page, Advocate (through VC) for Petitioners. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 17th September 2026 P.C. :
By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 12th January 2023 passed the Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, below Exhibit-11 in Civil Suit No. 34 of 2022, whereby the Petitioners have been directed to deposit in Court the arrears of license fees amounting to Rs.77,75,440/- along with GST of Rs.13,99,599/-, and to continue depositing license fees at the rate of Rs.4,85,965/- per month succeeding from 1st April 2022 onwards in respect of the suit premises.
The said order has been passed under Section 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Court has, prima facie, observed that the Plaintiff and the Defendants executed a registered Leave and License Agreement dated 4th May 2017 for a period of 60 months, commencing from 1st April 2017 and ending on 31st March 2022. 1/3 54 WP 9208.2025.doc Dusane
Under the said Agreement, the license fee was fixed at Rs.4,22,579/- per month, plus applicable GST, for the period from 1st April 2017 to 31st March 2020, and at Rs.4,85,965/- per month for the period from 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2022, plus applicable GST and municipal taxes.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, from December 2020 onwards, the Defendants failed and neglected to pay the license fees. Consequently, the Suit came to be instituted seeking eviction of the Defendants from the suit premises.
During the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiff filed an application seeking a direction to the Defendants to pay the arrears of license fees for the period from December 2020 to 31st March 2022, amounting to Rs.77,75,440/-, along with GST of Rs.13,19,599/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Plaintiff further sought payment of double licence fees at the rate of Rs.9,71,990/- per month, along with applicable GST, from 1st April 2022 until the Defendants vacate the suit premises.
The said application at Exhibit-6 was contested by the Defendants.
The Trial Court, upon considering the material on record, held that the Defendant was under a contractual obligation to pay license fees for the period from December 2020 to 31st March 2022, amounting to Rs. 77,75,440/-, along with GST of Rs. 13,99,599/-, to the Plaintiff. The 2/3 54 WP 9208.2025.doc Dusane
Defendant failed to make the said payments, thereby committing a breach of the Leave and License Agreement. Accordingly, during the pendency of the proceedings, the Trial Court directed the Defendant to deposit the aforesaid amount under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has paid Rs. 80,00,000/- towards taxes and, therefore, is not liable to pay the said amount. However, no such contention was raised in the defence filed in reply to Exhibit-16. Further, there is no material on record before the learned Trial Court to indicate that the Petitioner had paid Rs. 80,00,000/- towards taxes. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Petitioner has independently paid the maintenance charges, which were the responsibility of the owner. The Applicant may take such a stand before the Trial Court in the course of the trial. However, it is pertinent to note that this aspect was not mentioned in the reply filed by the Applicant to the Exhibit-16 Application.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 3/3 54 WP 9208.2025.doc Dusane
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.