M/S Attica Gold Co PVT LTD vs. M/S Express Publications (Madurai) PVT LTD

Facts

M/s Attica Gold Co Pvt Ltd (Appellant) filed a Commercial Appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging a judgment and decree dated September 17, 2026, passed by the Commercial Court in Com.O.S.No.920/2025. The suit was filed by M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt Ltd (Respondent) for ejectment, possession, and consequential reliefs. The Appellant sought time to vacate the commercial premises and agreed to continue paying rent. The Court initially permitted the Appellant to occupy the premises until March 31, 2027, subject to paying Rs. 5,50,000/- per month plus applicable GST, maintenance, and parking charges, and filing an affidavit of undertaking from the Managing Director. The Appellant failed to file the affidavit as directed, and instead filed an affidavit from a Director, which was not in compliance with the Court's order.

Held

The Court held that the affidavit of compliance filed by the Appellant, through its Director Ms. Leelavati K., was not in terms of the Court's previous order dated September 26, 2026. The previous order specifically required the Managing Director to file an affidavit for monthly payment of Rs. 5,50,000/- plus applicable GST, maintenance charges, and parking charges. The Appellant's affidavit proposing to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- including GST was rejected. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal. The Respondent was granted liberty to proceed with the execution of the impugned judgment and decree. The ratio decidendi is that failure to comply with specific directions of the Court, particularly concerning financial undertakings and the filing of affidavits by designated authorities, leads to the dismissal of the appeal and allows for the execution of the decree.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time to vacate the commercial premises and hand over possession to the Respondent, and under what conditions? 2. Whether the affidavit of compliance filed by the Appellant satisfies the Court's previous order regarding the payment of rent and other charges, and the filing of an undertaking by the Managing Director? Contentions of the Appellant: The Appellant argued that the Commercial Court did not grant sufficient time to vacate the premises and requested reasonable time for vacating. They also agreed to continue paying rent as agreed and later proposed to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- including GST. The Appellant's counsel sought an extension of time to file the affidavit of undertaking due to difficulties. Contentions of the Respondent: The Respondent, as the landlord, sought ejectment and possession. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Respondent's side beyond their initial suit for possession, but their position is implied by their claim for ejectment and execution of the decree.