Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ______________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 26214 OF 2024
M/S. A.J. SHETTY AND CO. PVT. LTD.
…APPELLANT(S)
V.
ST. ANTONY’S CHARITY INSTITUTES
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ______________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 26316 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the common judgment
th
and final order dated 11 September 2024 passed by a
1
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in RFA No. 525 of 2018 (RES) connected with RFA No. 2328 of
2019 (SP) and RFA Cross Objection No. 1 of 2019. The High
1
Hereinafter “High Court”
1
2
Court dismissed with costs the appeals filed by the Appellant
th
and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15 February
2018 passed by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
3
Mangaluru, D.K. in O.S. No. 144 of 2011 and O.S. No. 162 of
2014.
3. The facts, in brief , giving rise to the present appeals are
as given below.
th
3.1. On 20 August 1912, the Milagres Church granted a
permanent lease in favour of Respondent No. 1 in connection
with the suit property. The suit property consists of two items
– an area of 1 Acre 18.50 cents in Sy. No. 173-A2 and another
area of 0.52 cents in Sy. No. 174 at Attavara Village,
Mangaluru Taluk.
rd
3.2. On 23 September 1961, a lease deed for the suit
property was executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of
Respondent No. 3 for a period of 50 years. Respondent No. 3,
thereafter, constructed a multi-storied building and started a
business under the name of “ Hotel Motimahal ” on the suit
property.
2
RFA No. 525 of 2018 (RES) and RFA No. 2328 of 2019 (SP)
3
Hereinafter “Trial Court”
2
rd
3.3. On 3 February 1984, Respondent No. 3 by a sale deed
conveyed the lease hold rights, all improvements, business of
Hotel Motimahal along with the right to use the name to the
Appellant.
th
3.4. On 12 October 2009, in view of the impending expiry of
the lease deed, the Appellant wrote to Respondent No. 1 for
renewal. The same was rejected .
th
3.5. On 10 October 2011, Respondent No. 1 filed a suit
bearing O.S. No. 144 of 2011 in the Trial Court against the
Appellant and Respondent No. 3 inter-alia praying for a
direction to them to surrender vacant possession of the suit
rd st
property, to pay mesne profits from 23 September 2011 to 1
October 2011 at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per day, to pay
future mesne profits, etc.
st
3.6. On 1 March 2012, the Appellant also filed a suit bearing
O.S. No. 165 of 2012 (later re-numbered as O.S. No. 162 of
2014) in the Trial Court against Respondent No. 1, inter-alia,
praying for specific performance of a clause in the lease deed
rd
dated 23 September 1961 for renewal of the term of lease, for
a direction to Respondent No. 1 to renew the lease of suit
3
property for another term of 50 years on monthly rental to be
fixed by the Court, etc.
th
3.7. On 15 February 2018, upon consolidation of the suits
and recording of common evidence, the Trial Court by a
common judgment decreed the suit filed by Respondent No. 1
and dismissed with costs the suit filed by the Appellant. The
Appellant was directed to surrender the vacant possession of
the suit property to Respondent No. 1; the Appellant and
Respondent No. 3 were directed to jointly pay mesne profits
rd st
from 3 September 2011 to 1 October 2011 at the rate of Rs.
50,000/- per day and to jointly pay mesne profits from the date
of suit till the date of delivery at the same rate. Respondent
No. 1 was also entitled to recover the amount with interest at
the rate of 15% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
3.8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed by him, the
Appellant filed an appeal bearing RA No. 11 of 2018 before the
District Judge, Mangalore D.K. Simultaneously , the Appellant
also filed a Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 525 of 2018) before
the High Court challenging judgment and decree in favour of
Respondent No. 1.
4
th
3.9. On 14 March 2018, the Principal District Judge,
Mangalore D.K. admitted the appeal and allowed an
application filed by the Appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1
4
and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .
The Principal District Judge directed that the parties maintain
status quo with regard to possession of the suit property on
the condition that the Appellant pays/deposits an amount of
Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.
th
3.10. On 27 March 2018, in the RFA (No. 525 of 2018) filed
by the Appellant, a Division Bench of the High Court while
admitting the appeal prima facie found that the finding
regarding mesne profits is not supported by the evidence on
record. The High Court, therefore, granted interim relief of stay
th
of the judgment and decree dated 15 February 2018 on the
condition that the Appellant deposits a further sum of
Rs. 2,00,00,000/- before the High Court and continues to
deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month pending the
disposal of the appeal.
4
Hereinafter “CPC”
5
3.11. In 2019, the Regular Appeal (No. 11 of 2018) filed by
the Appellant before the District Judge, Mangalore D.K. came
to be transferred to the High Court and the same was
renumbered as RFA No. 2328 of 2019.
3.12. Before the High Court, Respondent No. 1 filed a Cross
Objection bearing RFA Cross Objection No. 1 of 2019 for
enhancement of mesne profit from Rs. 50,000/- per day to Rs.
1,00,000/- per day.
th
3.13. On 11 September 2024, the Division Bench of the
High Court, by the impugned judgment and final order,
dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellant so also the Cross
Objection filed by Respondent No. 1.
3.14. Aggrieved thereby the present appeals came to be filed
in this Court by way of special leave.
th
4. On the first day itself, this Court by an order dated 11
November 2024 referred the matter for mediation. With the
consent of the parties, the matter was referred to
Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S. Bopanna – Former Judge of this
Court.
5. On the second date, the parties reported that a
settlement has been arrived at in the present matter.
6
st
A duly signed settlement agreement dated 31 January 2025
was also received by this Court.
6. The settlement agreement reads thus:
“This memorandum of settlement is entered into, on
st
this the 31 day of January 2025 between M/s. A.J.
Shetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., by its Managing Director Sri.
A.J. Shetty of the First Party and St. Antony’s Charity
Institutes, Jeppu, Mangaluru represented by John
Baptist Crasta at Bangalore.
The parties named above have agreed as follows;
1. The first party has accepted as final, the
judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018
passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Mangalore and upheld by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka by its judgment dated
11.09.2024, in so far as rejecting the
prayer for specific performance and
directing the first party to vacate and hand
over vacant possession of the suit
schedule premises.
2. In that view the first party has agreed to
voluntarily vacate from the suit schedule
premises within three months from this
day i.e., on or before 30.04.2025. The
second party has consented to the same.
3. The first party shall hand over vacant
possession of the land and building
constructed thereon, to the second party
on ‘as is where is basis’.
4. The first party has assured the second
party that the first party has not created
any charge over the property towards any
outstanding. If any amount is due to any
person or authority in the process of
conducting business from the suit
schedule property, the first party alone
7
shall be liable and the suit schedule
property shall not be the subject matter for
any recovery in that regard.
5. In so far as the mesne profits as ordered
by the Trial Court and upheld by the
Hon’ble High Court, the parties in the
process of negotiation have taken note of
the vagaries involved in business, the
expenses incurred and also the
intervening COVID-19 pandemic when all
category of business had come to a
standstill.
6. Hence the second party has agreed to
receive the mesne profits at the reduced
rate, which is also an incentive for the first
party to voluntarily vacate from the
schedule property in a short duration as
agreed above, without driving the second
party to secure possession through
execution proceedings.
7. In that light, in modification of the decree
for mesne profits, the first party shall now
pay the mesne profits calculated at the
rate of Rs.23,000/ per day from
03.09.2011 onwards till the date of
vacating from the suit schedule premises.
The said amount shall not attract interest.
8. It is agreed between the parties that the
first party had deposited the amount
before the Appellate Court and High Court
pursuant to the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court as well as Appellate
Court. The second party has withdrawn
sum of Rs. 3,29,29,224/- from the said
amount and the balance is lying in deposit
before the Appellate Court and High Court
respectively.
9. In view of this settlement entered into
between the parties, the first party has no
8
objection for the second party to withdraw
the said amount with accrued interest.
10. On such adjustment of the deposited
amount towards the mesne profits agreed
between the parties, the first party shall
remain liable to pay the balance amount
towards full and final settlement of the
mesne profits.
11. The said amount shall be paid by the first
party to the second party in one lumpsum
or by way of instalments, but the entire
balance amount in any event shall be paid
on or before.30.04.2026, Bank Guarantee
for the same shall be furnished by the
First Party.
12. That the parties further agree that if the
above stated balance mesne profit amount
is not paid on before the date as agreed
above, the said balance amount shall
attract interest at 18% per annum
calculated from 2011 till the date of
payment.
13. In that view the parties agree that the
judgment and decree be modified in terms
of this memorandum of settlement.”
7. It was, however, submitted by Shri P. Vishwanatha
Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, that the Appellant is running a Hotel Management
5
Institute in the name of “ Moti Mahal College of Hotel
Management ” at the suit property and that in light of the
settlement arrived at with Respondent No. 1, the Appellant is
5
Hereinafter “Institute”
9
th
now required to vacate the suit property on or before 30 April
2025.
8. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the
Appellant intends to shift the Institute permanently to land
bearing Sy. No. 2/18(P), 2/19(P) Bolooru-B Village, Mangalore
6
City Corporation Limits, Mangalore . It was, however,
submitted that the campus at the new location is not yet ready
and so in the interregnum the Appellant has made an
arrangement to shift the Institute to property at Sy. No.
183A1B1(P), No. 89A, Kodialbail Village, Mangalore City
7
Corporation Limits, Mangalore .
9. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant that at present there are 240 students enrolled in
the Institute. It was submitted that by completing the course,
the students would have very good prospects for employment.
It was further submitted that as per the settlement agreement
arrived at between the parties, the Appellant does not have
enough sufficient time to directly move to the new location
which would have satisfied the requirements of All India
6
Hereinafter “new location”
7
Hereinafter “temporary location”
10
8
Council for Technical Education . It was, however, submitted
that the temporary location where the Appellant proposes to
shift the Institute will satisfy all the other facilities which are
required to be provided to the students for academic
excellence.
10. The learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that if the
Appellant is not allowed to shift to the temporary location, for
a period not exceeding 2 years, the students who are already
admitted to the degree course will be put to a lot of hardship
and inconvenience. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court
issue appropriate direction to the AICTE and the Mangalore
University to permit the Appellant to shift to the temporary
location and to continue to operate the course there for a
period not exceeding 2-years.
11. In this regard the Appellant sought permission to
implead the AICTE and Mangalore University as party-
respondents. The same was allowed by this Court by an order
st
dated 21 February 2025.
8
Hereinafter “AICTE”
11
st
12. When the matter was listed on 1 April 2025, Shri Harish
Pandey learned counsel appeared on behalf of the AICTE. It
was submitted by the learned counsel that in compliance of all
the provisions laid down in the Approval Process Handbook
2004, the AICTE had granted approval of Hotel Management
and Catering programme/course to the Appellant’s Institute
in the Academic Year 2004. It was further submitted that since
then the AICTE has granted Extension of Approval for this
course to the Institute up-to the Academic Year 2024-25 on
the basis of self-declaration.
13. The learned counsel for AICTE submitted that the
9
Approval Process Handbook 2024-27 lays down the
provisions of infrastructure requirement for running a
programme in the Institute. Relying on the provisions of
Chapter II of the AICTE-APH, it was submitted by the learned
counsel for the AICTE that the extant provisions provide that
the land where the Institute is to be run shall be with clear
title in the name of the trust/society/company or on a long-
term lease for a minimum period of 30 years and that the live
9
Hereinafter “AICTE-APH”
12
lease should be at least equal to maximum duration of
programme/course being run by the Institute. It was further
submitted that till date the AICTE has not received any kind
of proposal from the Appellant’s Institute.
14. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the
Appellant, Respondent No. 1 and the AICTE, it is clear that
insofar as the lis between the parties is concerned, the same
has been amicably settled through mediation.
15. The only issue that remains to be resolved is, as to,
whether in light of the settlement agreement and the extant
provisions of AICTE-APH a direction be issued to the AICTE?
16. The Appellant, having received requisite permission from
AICTE and recognition from Mangalore University, has been
running the Institute since the Academic Year 2004. Even for
Academic Year 2024-25, the Appellant has received
permission from AICTE. It, however, so happens that on
account of non-renewal of the lease agreement by Respondent
No. 1, the Appellant is now no longer able to run the Institute
from the suit property.
17. No doubt that Shri Harish Pandey, learned counsel for
the AICTE is right in saying that as per the provisions of
13
AICTE-APH, if the permission has to be continued, the
Appellant will have to shift its institute to a premises which is
either owned by it or a long-term lease for a minimum period
of 30 years has to be executed. However, the present appeal
arises out of peculiar facts and circumstances. The Appellant
is having a valid permission from 2004 till date. Around 250
students are taking education therein. It is not the case that
the Appellant is not having adequate infrastructure. However,
on account of the peculiar circumstances, the Appellant will
have to shift to the new location. The Appellant has already
taken steps for shifting its Institute to a campus which
conforms with the provisions of AICTE-APH. However, on
account of the peculiar facts, the said campus would not be
ready for a period of 2 years. Faced with the difficulty that on
one hand the Appellant has to vacate the present premises and
on the other hand, the campus where it is proposing to
relocate its Institute, is not ready, the Appellant is required to
shift its Institute at a temporary location.
18. We find that this is a fit case wherein this court should
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice. If we fail to
14
exercise the said power, the career of about 250 students
would be jeopardized. In that view of the matter, we are
inclined to issue the following directions:
(i) The AICTE and Mangalore University shall not insist,
for a period of 2 years from today, on compliance with
the requirement of the Appellant shifting its Institute
to a place which is either owned by it or in respect of
which the lease for a period of more than 30 years is
existing;
(ii) The AICTE and Mangalore University will continue the
permission/affiliation granted to the Institute for a
period of 2 years in a premises where the Appellant
would temporarily relocate its Institute. However, the
said premises would conform to the other
requirements;
(iii) The Appellant is directed to ensure that the
campus/new location which conforms with the
requirement of the AICTE would be complete within a
period of 2 years from today and that it shifts its
th
Institute to the said location prior to 30 April 2027;
15
(iv) Insofar as the lis between the parties is concerned, the
settlement agreement is taken on record and the
statements made by the parties in the said settlement
agreement are treated as an undertaking to this Court;
and
(v) The fee of the learned Mediator, with the consent of
the counsels appearing for both the parties is fixed at
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) to be shared
by the Appellant and Respondent No.1 in equal
proportion and the Appellant is entitled to adjustment
of the initial deposit of mediator’s fee, made in excess
of his obligation of 50%, towards mesne profits payable
to Respondent No.1.
19. Before we part with the judgment and order, we place on
record our deep gratitude for the efforts made by Hon’ble Shri
Justice A.S. Bopanna as a result of which the parties could
arrive at an amicable settlement.
20. We also place on record our deep appreciation for the
assistance rendered by the learned Senior counsel/counsel for
the parties for arriving at a settlement.
16
21. The appeals shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ______________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 26214 OF 2024
M/S. A.J. SHETTY AND CO. PVT. LTD.
…APPELLANT(S)
V.
ST. ANTONY’S CHARITY INSTITUTES
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ______________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 26316 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the common judgment
th
and final order dated 11 September 2024 passed by a
1
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in RFA No. 525 of 2018 (RES) connected with RFA No. 2328 of
2019 (SP) and RFA Cross Objection No. 1 of 2019. The High
1
Hereinafter “High Court”
1
2
Court dismissed with costs the appeals filed by the Appellant
th
and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15 February
2018 passed by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
3
Mangaluru, D.K. in O.S. No. 144 of 2011 and O.S. No. 162 of
2014.
3. The facts, in brief , giving rise to the present appeals are
as given below.
th
3.1. On 20 August 1912, the Milagres Church granted a
permanent lease in favour of Respondent No. 1 in connection
with the suit property. The suit property consists of two items
– an area of 1 Acre 18.50 cents in Sy. No. 173-A2 and another
area of 0.52 cents in Sy. No. 174 at Attavara Village,
Mangaluru Taluk.
rd
3.2. On 23 September 1961, a lease deed for the suit
property was executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of
Respondent No. 3 for a period of 50 years. Respondent No. 3,
thereafter, constructed a multi-storied building and started a
business under the name of “ Hotel Motimahal ” on the suit
property.
2
RFA No. 525 of 2018 (RES) and RFA No. 2328 of 2019 (SP)
3
Hereinafter “Trial Court”
2
rd
3.3. On 3 February 1984, Respondent No. 3 by a sale deed
conveyed the lease hold rights, all improvements, business of
Hotel Motimahal along with the right to use the name to the
Appellant.
th
3.4. On 12 October 2009, in view of the impending expiry of
the lease deed, the Appellant wrote to Respondent No. 1 for
renewal. The same was rejected .
th
3.5. On 10 October 2011, Respondent No. 1 filed a suit
bearing O.S. No. 144 of 2011 in the Trial Court against the
Appellant and Respondent No. 3 inter-alia praying for a
direction to them to surrender vacant possession of the suit
rd st
property, to pay mesne profits from 23 September 2011 to 1
October 2011 at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per day, to pay
future mesne profits, etc.
st
3.6. On 1 March 2012, the Appellant also filed a suit bearing
O.S. No. 165 of 2012 (later re-numbered as O.S. No. 162 of
2014) in the Trial Court against Respondent No. 1, inter-alia,
praying for specific performance of a clause in the lease deed
rd
dated 23 September 1961 for renewal of the term of lease, for
a direction to Respondent No. 1 to renew the lease of suit
3
property for another term of 50 years on monthly rental to be
fixed by the Court, etc.
th
3.7. On 15 February 2018, upon consolidation of the suits
and recording of common evidence, the Trial Court by a
common judgment decreed the suit filed by Respondent No. 1
and dismissed with costs the suit filed by the Appellant. The
Appellant was directed to surrender the vacant possession of
the suit property to Respondent No. 1; the Appellant and
Respondent No. 3 were directed to jointly pay mesne profits
rd st
from 3 September 2011 to 1 October 2011 at the rate of Rs.
50,000/- per day and to jointly pay mesne profits from the date
of suit till the date of delivery at the same rate. Respondent
No. 1 was also entitled to recover the amount with interest at
the rate of 15% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
3.8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed by him, the
Appellant filed an appeal bearing RA No. 11 of 2018 before the
District Judge, Mangalore D.K. Simultaneously , the Appellant
also filed a Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 525 of 2018) before
the High Court challenging judgment and decree in favour of
Respondent No. 1.
4
th
3.9. On 14 March 2018, the Principal District Judge,
Mangalore D.K. admitted the appeal and allowed an
application filed by the Appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1
4
and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .
The Principal District Judge directed that the parties maintain
status quo with regard to possession of the suit property on
the condition that the Appellant pays/deposits an amount of
Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.
th
3.10. On 27 March 2018, in the RFA (No. 525 of 2018) filed
by the Appellant, a Division Bench of the High Court while
admitting the appeal prima facie found that the finding
regarding mesne profits is not supported by the evidence on
record. The High Court, therefore, granted interim relief of stay
th
of the judgment and decree dated 15 February 2018 on the
condition that the Appellant deposits a further sum of
Rs. 2,00,00,000/- before the High Court and continues to
deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month pending the
disposal of the appeal.
4
Hereinafter “CPC”
5
3.11. In 2019, the Regular Appeal (No. 11 of 2018) filed by
the Appellant before the District Judge, Mangalore D.K. came
to be transferred to the High Court and the same was
renumbered as RFA No. 2328 of 2019.
3.12. Before the High Court, Respondent No. 1 filed a Cross
Objection bearing RFA Cross Objection No. 1 of 2019 for
enhancement of mesne profit from Rs. 50,000/- per day to Rs.
1,00,000/- per day.
th
3.13. On 11 September 2024, the Division Bench of the
High Court, by the impugned judgment and final order,
dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellant so also the Cross
Objection filed by Respondent No. 1.
3.14. Aggrieved thereby the present appeals came to be filed
in this Court by way of special leave.
th
4. On the first day itself, this Court by an order dated 11
November 2024 referred the matter for mediation. With the
consent of the parties, the matter was referred to
Hon’ble Shri Justice A.S. Bopanna – Former Judge of this
Court.
5. On the second date, the parties reported that a
settlement has been arrived at in the present matter.
6
st
A duly signed settlement agreement dated 31 January 2025
was also received by this Court.
6. The settlement agreement reads thus:
“This memorandum of settlement is entered into, on
st
this the 31 day of January 2025 between M/s. A.J.
Shetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., by its Managing Director Sri.
A.J. Shetty of the First Party and St. Antony’s Charity
Institutes, Jeppu, Mangaluru represented by John
Baptist Crasta at Bangalore.
The parties named above have agreed as follows;
1. The first party has accepted as final, the
judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018
passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Mangalore and upheld by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka by its judgment dated
11.09.2024, in so far as rejecting the
prayer for specific performance and
directing the first party to vacate and hand
over vacant possession of the suit
schedule premises.
2. In that view the first party has agreed to
voluntarily vacate from the suit schedule
premises within three months from this
day i.e., on or before 30.04.2025. The
second party has consented to the same.
3. The first party shall hand over vacant
possession of the land and building
constructed thereon, to the second party
on ‘as is where is basis’.
4. The first party has assured the second
party that the first party has not created
any charge over the property towards any
outstanding. If any amount is due to any
person or authority in the process of
conducting business from the suit
schedule property, the first party alone
7
shall be liable and the suit schedule
property shall not be the subject matter for
any recovery in that regard.
5. In so far as the mesne profits as ordered
by the Trial Court and upheld by the
Hon’ble High Court, the parties in the
process of negotiation have taken note of
the vagaries involved in business, the
expenses incurred and also the
intervening COVID-19 pandemic when all
category of business had come to a
standstill.
6. Hence the second party has agreed to
receive the mesne profits at the reduced
rate, which is also an incentive for the first
party to voluntarily vacate from the
schedule property in a short duration as
agreed above, without driving the second
party to secure possession through
execution proceedings.
7. In that light, in modification of the decree
for mesne profits, the first party shall now
pay the mesne profits calculated at the
rate of Rs.23,000/ per day from
03.09.2011 onwards till the date of
vacating from the suit schedule premises.
The said amount shall not attract interest.
8. It is agreed between the parties that the
first party had deposited the amount
before the Appellate Court and High Court
pursuant to the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court as well as Appellate
Court. The second party has withdrawn
sum of Rs. 3,29,29,224/- from the said
amount and the balance is lying in deposit
before the Appellate Court and High Court
respectively.
9. In view of this settlement entered into
between the parties, the first party has no
8
objection for the second party to withdraw
the said amount with accrued interest.
10. On such adjustment of the deposited
amount towards the mesne profits agreed
between the parties, the first party shall
remain liable to pay the balance amount
towards full and final settlement of the
mesne profits.
11. The said amount shall be paid by the first
party to the second party in one lumpsum
or by way of instalments, but the entire
balance amount in any event shall be paid
on or before.30.04.2026, Bank Guarantee
for the same shall be furnished by the
First Party.
12. That the parties further agree that if the
above stated balance mesne profit amount
is not paid on before the date as agreed
above, the said balance amount shall
attract interest at 18% per annum
calculated from 2011 till the date of
payment.
13. In that view the parties agree that the
judgment and decree be modified in terms
of this memorandum of settlement.”
7. It was, however, submitted by Shri P. Vishwanatha
Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, that the Appellant is running a Hotel Management
5
Institute in the name of “ Moti Mahal College of Hotel
Management ” at the suit property and that in light of the
settlement arrived at with Respondent No. 1, the Appellant is
5
Hereinafter “Institute”
9
th
now required to vacate the suit property on or before 30 April
2025.
8. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the
Appellant intends to shift the Institute permanently to land
bearing Sy. No. 2/18(P), 2/19(P) Bolooru-B Village, Mangalore
6
City Corporation Limits, Mangalore . It was, however,
submitted that the campus at the new location is not yet ready
and so in the interregnum the Appellant has made an
arrangement to shift the Institute to property at Sy. No.
183A1B1(P), No. 89A, Kodialbail Village, Mangalore City
7
Corporation Limits, Mangalore .
9. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant that at present there are 240 students enrolled in
the Institute. It was submitted that by completing the course,
the students would have very good prospects for employment.
It was further submitted that as per the settlement agreement
arrived at between the parties, the Appellant does not have
enough sufficient time to directly move to the new location
which would have satisfied the requirements of All India
6
Hereinafter “new location”
7
Hereinafter “temporary location”
10
8
Council for Technical Education . It was, however, submitted
that the temporary location where the Appellant proposes to
shift the Institute will satisfy all the other facilities which are
required to be provided to the students for academic
excellence.
10. The learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that if the
Appellant is not allowed to shift to the temporary location, for
a period not exceeding 2 years, the students who are already
admitted to the degree course will be put to a lot of hardship
and inconvenience. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court
issue appropriate direction to the AICTE and the Mangalore
University to permit the Appellant to shift to the temporary
location and to continue to operate the course there for a
period not exceeding 2-years.
11. In this regard the Appellant sought permission to
implead the AICTE and Mangalore University as party-
respondents. The same was allowed by this Court by an order
st
dated 21 February 2025.
8
Hereinafter “AICTE”
11
st
12. When the matter was listed on 1 April 2025, Shri Harish
Pandey learned counsel appeared on behalf of the AICTE. It
was submitted by the learned counsel that in compliance of all
the provisions laid down in the Approval Process Handbook
2004, the AICTE had granted approval of Hotel Management
and Catering programme/course to the Appellant’s Institute
in the Academic Year 2004. It was further submitted that since
then the AICTE has granted Extension of Approval for this
course to the Institute up-to the Academic Year 2024-25 on
the basis of self-declaration.
13. The learned counsel for AICTE submitted that the
9
Approval Process Handbook 2024-27 lays down the
provisions of infrastructure requirement for running a
programme in the Institute. Relying on the provisions of
Chapter II of the AICTE-APH, it was submitted by the learned
counsel for the AICTE that the extant provisions provide that
the land where the Institute is to be run shall be with clear
title in the name of the trust/society/company or on a long-
term lease for a minimum period of 30 years and that the live
9
Hereinafter “AICTE-APH”
12
lease should be at least equal to maximum duration of
programme/course being run by the Institute. It was further
submitted that till date the AICTE has not received any kind
of proposal from the Appellant’s Institute.
14. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the
Appellant, Respondent No. 1 and the AICTE, it is clear that
insofar as the lis between the parties is concerned, the same
has been amicably settled through mediation.
15. The only issue that remains to be resolved is, as to,
whether in light of the settlement agreement and the extant
provisions of AICTE-APH a direction be issued to the AICTE?
16. The Appellant, having received requisite permission from
AICTE and recognition from Mangalore University, has been
running the Institute since the Academic Year 2004. Even for
Academic Year 2024-25, the Appellant has received
permission from AICTE. It, however, so happens that on
account of non-renewal of the lease agreement by Respondent
No. 1, the Appellant is now no longer able to run the Institute
from the suit property.
17. No doubt that Shri Harish Pandey, learned counsel for
the AICTE is right in saying that as per the provisions of
13
AICTE-APH, if the permission has to be continued, the
Appellant will have to shift its institute to a premises which is
either owned by it or a long-term lease for a minimum period
of 30 years has to be executed. However, the present appeal
arises out of peculiar facts and circumstances. The Appellant
is having a valid permission from 2004 till date. Around 250
students are taking education therein. It is not the case that
the Appellant is not having adequate infrastructure. However,
on account of the peculiar circumstances, the Appellant will
have to shift to the new location. The Appellant has already
taken steps for shifting its Institute to a campus which
conforms with the provisions of AICTE-APH. However, on
account of the peculiar facts, the said campus would not be
ready for a period of 2 years. Faced with the difficulty that on
one hand the Appellant has to vacate the present premises and
on the other hand, the campus where it is proposing to
relocate its Institute, is not ready, the Appellant is required to
shift its Institute at a temporary location.
18. We find that this is a fit case wherein this court should
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice. If we fail to
14
exercise the said power, the career of about 250 students
would be jeopardized. In that view of the matter, we are
inclined to issue the following directions:
(i) The AICTE and Mangalore University shall not insist,
for a period of 2 years from today, on compliance with
the requirement of the Appellant shifting its Institute
to a place which is either owned by it or in respect of
which the lease for a period of more than 30 years is
existing;
(ii) The AICTE and Mangalore University will continue the
permission/affiliation granted to the Institute for a
period of 2 years in a premises where the Appellant
would temporarily relocate its Institute. However, the
said premises would conform to the other
requirements;
(iii) The Appellant is directed to ensure that the
campus/new location which conforms with the
requirement of the AICTE would be complete within a
period of 2 years from today and that it shifts its
th
Institute to the said location prior to 30 April 2027;
15
(iv) Insofar as the lis between the parties is concerned, the
settlement agreement is taken on record and the
statements made by the parties in the said settlement
agreement are treated as an undertaking to this Court;
and
(v) The fee of the learned Mediator, with the consent of
the counsels appearing for both the parties is fixed at
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) to be shared
by the Appellant and Respondent No.1 in equal
proportion and the Appellant is entitled to adjustment
of the initial deposit of mediator’s fee, made in excess
of his obligation of 50%, towards mesne profits payable
to Respondent No.1.
19. Before we part with the judgment and order, we place on
record our deep gratitude for the efforts made by Hon’ble Shri
Justice A.S. Bopanna as a result of which the parties could
arrive at an amicable settlement.
20. We also place on record our deep appreciation for the
assistance rendered by the learned Senior counsel/counsel for
the parties for arriving at a settlement.
16
21. The appeals shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
17