Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 28th August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPC Ltd); Respondents – a group of heirs of the late Tajdin Javerbhai Mavany (including Smt. Sakina Mavany, Smt. Praveen Mavany, etc.) represented by Shri Sandesh Krishna Naik, and Respondent No.2 – Nanu Engineers Private Limited, represented by its Director Mr. Sankalp Sandesh Naik.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil Application (Review) No.17/2026 in Second Appeal No.7/2013, seeking review of the Court’s order dated 18‑02‑2026 issued in Misc. Civil Application No.93/2026.
  • Background: The original order directed the applicant to deposit rent at an enhanced rate of Rs 5 lakhs per month (instead of Rs 25,000) from 01‑01‑2020 to 01‑01‑2026 and thereafter quarterly, together with applicable GST, and to transfer the deposited amounts to the account of Respondent No.2. The applicant challenged this on three grounds: (a) alleged error in valuation of a contiguous property, (b) alleged contravention of Supreme Court precedent (Super Max International Private Ltd. case) regarding release of deposited rents, and (c) procedural impropriety in enhancing rent without cause.
  • Grounds Presented:
  • Ground (a): Valuation Report dated 22‑12‑2025 stated a value of Rs 15,28,80,000 for a contiguous plot as on that date, not for 2019. The applicant argued that using the 2025 value for 2019 inflated the rent calculation; however, the Court found that even using the 2025 value and applying a 5% p.a. return yields rent close to Rs 5 lakhs, so no apparent error existed.
  • Ground (b): The applicant cited the Supreme Court’s Super Max International Private Ltd. judgment, which holds that amounts deposited over contractual rent should not be released to the landlord during pendency of an appeal unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The Court noted the application contained no such exceptional reasons.
  • Ground (c): The applicant claimed the rent enhancement was effectively a modification of the 23‑07‑2014 order and therefore not maintainable; the Court examined the application and found it expressly sought enhancement to Rs 6 lakhs per month, making the ground untenable.

Final Outcome

  • The Court partially allows the review application:

1. Recalls the direction in paragraph 14 of the 18‑02‑2026 judgment that ordered release of rent deposits (Rs 5 lakhs per month) to Respondent No.2 for the period 01‑01‑2020 to 01‑01‑2026 and the instruction to remit future deposits to Respondent No.2. This part of the judgment is deleted.

2. Leaves intact the remaining portions of the 18‑02‑2026 order (i.e., any other directions not related to the release of deposits).

3. Orders Respondent No.2 to file, within one week, an undertaking signed by an authorized person confirming that it will return the amount already released into its account to the Court’s Registry if the appellant ultimately succeeds in Second Appeal No.7/2013.

  • The application for enhancement of rent to Rs 6 lakhs per month is deemed maintainable, but the Court does not alter that aspect in this order.
  • Civil Application (Review) No.1090/2026 (F) is disposed of as above.

Topics: Rent Deposit, Court Review, Commercial Lease