S.Vijayarani vs Global Group Of Company
2025 Latest Caselaw 8652 Mad

Madras High Court

S.Vijayarani vs Global Group Of Company on 17 November, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 17.11.2025

                                                          CORAM:

                                THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                    and
                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

                                           Appeal (CAD) No.46 of 2025
                                                      and
                                         C.M.P.Nos.20109 & 20111 of 2025

                     S.Vijayarani                                                     .. Appellant

                                                               Vs.

                     1.Global Group of Company
                     is having Head Office at
                     Global Vision Electronic Sadan-II,
                     MIDC TTCR Industrial area, Mahape,
                     Navi Mumbai, Maharastra-400 710.

                     2.M/s.GTL Infrastructure Ltd., (Global Group of Companies),
                     Carrying on business at No.186, Poonamalle Road,
                     Chennai-600 010.

                     3.M/s.Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd.,
                     (Global Group of Companies),
                     Carrying on business at No.186, Poonamalle Road,
                     Chennai-600 010.

                     4.M/s.Aircel Cellular Limited,
                     was carrying on business at Spencer Plaza,
                     5th Floor, No.769, Anna Salai,
                     Chennai-600 002.
                     1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 05:16:40 pm )
                     [R3 and R4 are given up vide Court
                     order dated 14.10.2025 in Appeal (CAD)
                     No.46 of 2025 (GJJ & MSKJ)                                               .. Respondents

                     PRAYER: Appeal (CAD) is filed under Section 13(1A) of Commercial
                     Courts Act, 2015 read with 96 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the Judgment
                     and Decree dated 05.07.2024 passed by the District Judge, Commercial
                     Court, Egmore, Chennai -8 in C.O.S.No.645 of 2022.

                                                For Appellant              : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
                                                For R1                     : No appearance
                                                For R2                     : Mr.C.Sakthimanikandan

                                                                   ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.]

It is a case, where the landlady had permitted a cellular company to

enter upon her land to erect a tower for a period of nine years. The lease

agreement entered on 25.04.2009 for a term of nine years has expired long

back, however, the tower erected on the premises has neither been removed

nor has any lease rent or amount towards use and occupation been paid.

2. It appears that the 4th respondent, the cellular company which

initially entered into the lease agreement with the landlady, subsequently

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 05:16:40 pm ) transferred the tower and its related assets to the 2nd respondent/M/s.GTL

Infrastructure Ltd., which claims right upto the year 2019. Thereafter, the

structure erected by the erstwhile owner, namely M/s.Aircel Cellular Limited

has been abandoned.

3. The landlady has approached this Court seeking arrears of rent

to the tune of Rs.3,08,632/- with interest at 18% per annum, after adjusting

the advance amount and rent already paid.

4. The lease deed having been produced with deficit stamp, was

impounded and sent for assessment of the requisite stamp duty and penalty.

The fate of the documents received by the Collector office is unknown till

date. Meanwhile, the Court below taking up the suit and considering the

petition filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, referred

the parties to alternate dispute resolution vide order dated 05.07.2024. This

order has been challenged by the landlady in the present appeal, which is now

pending before us for consideration.

5. The landlady, having frustrated by the delay and the dismissal of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 05:16:40 pm ) her suit citing the arbitration clause contained in the lease agreement, has,

after preferring the appeal, expressed her willingness to withdraw the same

provided the 2nd respondent, who is the contesting respondent, removes the

dismantled tower which is in the custody of the landlady. The tower has been

dismantled and kept in her custody after its removal owing to corrosion,

which posed an imminent danger to the landowner and neighbouring

residents.

6. A memo has been filed to the effect that the appellant is ready to

accept the payment of all the arrears of rent and damages, if the 2nd

respondent removes the tower and other dismantled materials kept on the

terrace of the appellant's property since 22.04.2025.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted

that the respondent company, after undergoing restructuring, is now on the

path of recovery from its bad economic condition. It is further submitted that

the respondent company is not interested in utilizing the appellant's premises

for transmission purpose through tower erected on the appellant's property.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 05:16:40 pm )

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the

appellant is not inclined to pursue her claim for damages and arrears of lease

rent and the 2nd respondent is not interested in keeping the tower on the

appellant's premises, it would be appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to

remove all the dismantled materials kept in the custody of the appellant within

a period of 30 days from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing

which, the appellant shall be at liberty to place the materials in public auction

through any recognized auctioneer company and remit the sale proceeds

directly to the 2nd respondent after deducting the expenses incurred for

conducting the auction.

9. In the result, this Appeal (CAD) is disposed of. Consequently,

the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

                                                                                 [Dr.G.J., J.]     & [M.S.K., J.]
                                                                                                 17.11.2025
                     rpl



                     To

The District Judge, Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai -8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 05:16:40 pm ) Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.

and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR., J.