M/S. Deccan Retreat And M/S Regent Bhairvai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation LTD. And Anr

Held

The Court granted a partial extension for the payment of the balance compensation amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-. While the applicant sought an extension by 15 months, the Court was not inclined to grant such an extensive period. Instead, considering the applicant's projected peculiar financial situation, the Court modified the direction to pay the balance amount in seven equated monthly installments instead of the originally stipulated five. The Court emphasized that other conditions of the order dated 11/06/2021, including clause (vi), would remain intact. The Court also directed the concerned Court to make every endeavor for the expeditious culmination of Special Civil Suit Nos. 503 of 2011 and 634 of 2011, pending for over a decade, with parties directed to cooperate. The issue of GST component in the monthly payments was part of the original order and not specifically challenged or modified in this application.

Facts

The applicant, M/s. Deccan Retreat and M/s. Regent Bhairavi Corporation, sought an extension of time for compliance with an order dated 11/06/2021. This order, passed by the Bombay High Court, directed the payment of compensation in two parts: 50% (Rs. 7,50,000/-) monthly along with GST from June 2021 until the lockdown was lifted, and the balance Rs. 7,50,000/- in five equated monthly installments after the lockdown withdrawal. Failure to comply would result in termination of the agency agreement and possession of the food track. The applicant's Special Leave Petition against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12/07/2021. A subsequent Review Petition was also not entertained. The present application specifically sought an extension for the payment of the balance compensation amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time for payment of the balance compensation amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- in light of the financial difficulties posed by the pandemic. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argued that the pandemic caused serious difficulties for businesses and sought an extension for the payment of the balance compensation amount, originally stipulated to be paid in five equated monthly installments after the lockdown withdrawal. They initially sought an extension by 15 months. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State) on the extension of time for payment. However, the Court noted that the other conditions of the order dated 11/06/2021, including clause (vi), were to remain intact.