Premium
This is an archive article published on February 19, 2023

Copper Chimney in Kala Ghoda set to shut down

HC dismisses appeal against civil court order refusing to stop eviction

Kala Ghoda outlet of restaurant Copper Chimney. (Express Photo)Kala Ghoda outlet of restaurant Copper Chimney. (Express Photo)
Listen to this article
Copper Chimney in Kala Ghoda set to shut down
x
00:00
1x 1.5x 1.8x

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by the Kala Ghoda outlet of the popular fine dining restaurant Copper Chimney in south Mumbai against the city civil court refusing to stop the restaurant’s eviction from its premises.

Justice Girish S Kulkarni continued the earlier interim arrangement and allowed appellant Deluxe Caterers Private Limited, which operates the restaurant, to continue to have possession of the premises for two more weeks.
However, the HC said the same would be permitted only if the restaurant deposited an additional amount of Rs 12 lakh per month with effect from October 2022 with the proprietor and also filed an undertaking with the court by February 20.

The Trade Wings Limited as well as Narayani Hospitality and Academic Institution, owners of two units situated on the ground floor of the building – where Copper Chimney is located – run by Kalaghoda Buildings Bhadekaru Cooperative Premises Society Limited had let out their premises to Narayani Associates on October 18, 2017.

Story continues below this ad

On November 20, 2017, proprietor Narayani Associates, with permission from the two owners, entered into an agreement with Deluxe Caterers allowing it to occupy the two units to run its restaurant Copper Chimney.

Deluxe Caterers agreed to pay Narayani Associates Rs 6 lakh per month and an additional fee equivalent to 18 percent of the net annual turnover above Rs 2 crore for financial year 2017-18.

It was entitled to occupy the premises for five years from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2022, when the license would expire.

Meanwhile, the Covid-19 pandemic began in March 2020 and Deluxe Caterers, on March 23, wrote to Narayani Associates, invoking force majeure, stating that the period of the pandemic will be excluded from the terms of agreement.

Story continues below this ad

Deluxe Caterers’ request to waive rentals and occupational costs during the pandemic was turned down by Narayani Associates. On May 31, last year, Narayani Associates issued a notice to the restaurant stating that it had no intention of renewing the agreement and asked it to vacate the premises on or before September 30, 2022.

Following this, the restaurant moved the city civil court. The judge on September 27, last year, refused to temporarily restrain or injunct Narayani Associates from interfering in the restaurant’s possession of the premises. Narayani Associates then asked Deluxe Caterers to vacate the premises by September 30. Following this, Deluxe Caterers moved HC.

The HC, in its earlier interim orders, had allowed the restaurant conduct its business after depositing the differential amount that the owners were entitled to from the prospective new licensee, with whom they had entered into a more expensive agreement.

Senior advocate Ravi Kadam and advocate Prateek Sakseria, appearing for the restaurant, told HC that the trial court had erred in its order. However, senior advocate S U Kamdar, appearing for Narayani Associates, said the restaurant ran its business after being shut for a small period during the pandemic and therefore, invoking force majeure clause would not exclude the two-year pandemic. Kamdar added that there was no prima facie material to show that Deluxe Caterers was totally closed for two years.

Story continues below this ad

Advocate Aseem Naphade, appearing for the two owners of the units located at the building, said the HC should not interfere in the trial court order.
Justice Kulkarni observed that it will be “unacceptable” that the term of contract as sought to be canvassed by Deluxe Caterers would stand extended by force majeure.

The judge added that after the agreement expired, the restaurant had “no legal right” to seek relief to continue to remain in possession of the premises. “Considering the substantial price variation, prejudice was being caused to the respondents in the appellant retaining the premises.”

Speaking to The Indian Express, one of the owners of the premises, said, “We welcome the HC order. Even if it is delayed justice, the court has upheld our stand. There was no case in the restaurant operator’s appeal and it had given false statements and harassed us… The operator has been chargesheeted in a criminal case and now with the HC order, other property owners with whom it is in business should be careful.”

Meanwhile, as per the owner, the lease of another popular restaurant, Irish House, located in the same building, had expired on September 30, 2022. The restaurant vacated the premises in December.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement