M/S. Edit Ii Productions vs Shoeb Mohammad Taj Mohammad ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11236 Bom

                                                                               ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                          INTERIM APPLICATION NO.159 OF 2019
                                                           IN
                                          NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.2304 OF 2018
                                                          WITH
                                          INTERIM APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2019
                                                           IN
                                          NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.2659 OF 2014
VISHAL                                                     IN
SUBHASH                                            SUIT NO.461 OF 2010
PAREKAR
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
                   Mohammed Riyaz Shaikh and Others                         ...Applicants
SUBHASH
PAREKAR                  In the matter between
Date: 2022.10.21
20:45:38 +0530
                   M/s. Edit II Productions and Others                      ...Plaintiffs
                               vs.
                   Shoeb Mohammad Taj Mohammad Shaikh
                   and Others                                               ...Defendants

                   Ms. Neeta Karnik, for the Applicants.
                   Mr. Rohaan Cama i/b. Ms. Sapana Rachure, for the Plaintiffs.
                   Ms. Kranti Anand, for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4.
                   Ms. Gajhala Khan, S.O to Court Receiver.

                                                     CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                               RESERVED ON :        29th SEPTEMBER, 2022
                                             PRONOUNCED ON :        21st OCTOBER, 2022
                                                         -------------

                   ORDER

1. The applicants/respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Notice of Motion

(L) No. 2304 of 2018 have taken out these applications.

2. In Interim Application No. 159 of 2019 the applicants have

prayed for their appointment as the agents of the Court Receiver

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...1 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

with permission to continue in possession of Flat No. 704, 7 th Floor,

Evershine Woods, B3(3) Building, Mira Road (E), Thane (the

subject premises).

3. In Interim Application No. 160 of 2019 the applicants have

prayed for recall of the order dated 13 th April, 2016 passed by this

Court in Notice of Motion (L) No. 2659 of 2014 qua the subject

premises and instead permit the applicants to deposit the booking

amount received by the Evershine Builders Private Limited (the

respondent No. 1) from defendant Nos. 2 to 4, in the Court.

4. By the said order this Court had permitted the plaintiffs to

pay the balance consideration in respect of the subject property,

which was then in the possession of the developer i.e. Evershine

Builders Private Limited, the respondent No. 1, and take possession

of the subject premises as agent of the Court Receiver with a right

to create licence in respect thereof and appropriate the amounts

towards such payments and hold the balance subject to the result of

the suit.

5. The applicants seek that the aforesaid order permitting the

plaintiffs to pay the balance consideration and take over the

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...2 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

possession of subject premises in the capacity of the agent of the

Court Receiver be recalled and instead the applicants be permitted

to deposit the booking amount received by Evershine Builders

Private Limited (respondent No. 1) from defendant Nos. 2 to 4

which was an alternative prayer in the said Notice of Motion (L) No.

2659 of 2014

6. As is often the case, the alleged fraudulent acts of defendant

Nos. 2 to 4 have led to multiple proceedings involving the parties

who were not privy to the dispute between the plaintiff and

defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Yet, shorn of unnecessary details, the

background facts can be stated, as under:-

M/s. Edit II Productions, the plaintiff No. 1 (M/s. Edit), is a

registered partnership firm. Mr. Shoeib Mohammed Taj Mohammed

Shaikh, defendant No. 2, had been working as a Chief Accountant

with the firm whilst it was still a proprietorship concern of Mrs.

Binaifer Sanjay Kohli. Post conversion into a partnership firm,

defendant No. 2 Shoeib Mohammed Taj Mohammed Shaikh

continued to work as the Chief Accountant with M/s. Edit.

7. In the month of November, 2008 pursuant to investigation by

Income Tax Department, it transpired that defendant No. 2 had

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...3 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

allegedly siphoned away a huge amount of over Rs. 3 Crores from

M/s. Edit's accounts during 2005 to 2008 by forging the signatures

of the authorized signatories. Several amounts were transferred to

the account of defendant No. 3, wife of defendant No. 2, and third

parties and properties were also purchased in the names of

defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Criminal Prosecution was initiated against

the defendant No. 2.

8. A suit being Suit No. 461 of 2010 came to be instituted against

defendants seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.3,00,43,514/- and

damages of Rs. 5 Crore. The plaintiffs also prayed for sale of the

properties by the Liquidator appointed by this Court which were

fraudulently acquired by defendant No. 2, by withdrawing the

amount from the accounts of M/s. Edit by forging the instruments,

either in his name and/or in the names of co-defendants and the

proceeds so realized be appropriated towards the satisfaction of the

decree which may be passed by the Court.

9. In the said suit, the plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion No.

543 of 2010. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 made a statement on an

affidavit that they will not dispose of and/or create any third party

rights in respect of any of the properties which stood in their name.

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...4 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

Thereupon by an order dated 11th August, 2010 ad-interim

application came to be disposed. In the wake of the criminal

proceeding and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Writ Petitions came to be filed in

this Court. By an order dated 4 th July, 2011 a learned single Judge

of this Court while giving liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the

learned Judge seized with the civil suit, ordered that until

appropriate orders are passed the civil suit, neither defendant Nos.

3 and 4- the petitioners therein nor defendant No. 2 shall deal with

the said properties, in any manner and maintain status-quo in

respect thereof.

10. The subject premises was governed by the aforesaid orders.

11. In the meanwhile, by an order dated 13 th April, 2016 passed in

Notice of Motion No. 395 of 2012 along with connected Notice of

Motions, including Notice of Motion No. 2538 of 2011, this Court

passed several interim orders including appointment of the Court

Receiver. Qua the subject premises i.e. Flat No. 704, this Court

directed, inter alia, as under:-

(c) The Court Receiver shall pay to the Respondents to Notice of Motion (L) No. 2659 of 2014 the balance consideration for three properties forming part of the subject matter of that motion, namely, (i) Flat No.

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...5 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

704, 7th Floor, Evershine Woods, B3 (3) Building, Mira Road (East), Thane District, (ii) Shop No. 1072 on Ground Floor, Ease Zone, Goregaon (West), Mumbai, and (iii) Shop No. G044, Ground Floor, Express Zone, Patel Vanika, Western Express Highway, Malad (East), Mumbai-400 063 and take over the properties and handover possession thereof to the Plaintiff as agent of the Court Receiver. The payment of such balance consideration shall be funded by the Plaintiff;

(d) The Plaintiff shall, as such agent, be entitled to create licences in respect of these three properties and recover licence fees and appropriate the same upfront towards reimbursement of the payment of the balance consideration in terms of Clause (c) above, and retain the balance licence fees subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court in the suit.

12. It would be contextually relevant to note that pursuant to an order

dated 7th August, 2018 in Court Receiver's Report NO. 161 of 2017 the

plaintiffs deposited the balance consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs with Ever

Shine Builders Private Limited under a covering letter dated 10th August,

2018.

13. While the said Notice of Motion awaited adjudication, the

defendant No. 3, filed an affidavit on 16 th September, 2015 stating

that the subject premises was in her possession. In a further

affidavit dated 13th October, 2015 also the defendant No. 3 reiterated

that the subject premises was in her possession. However, on 15 th

September, 2015, the defendant No. 3 executed an agreement for

sale professing to convey the subject premises in favour of the

applicants herein and Mohammed Riyaz Shaikh, (respondent No. 5

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...6 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

in Notice of Motion (L) No. 2304 of 2018), the son of the applicants.

14. The plaintiffs thus took out a Notice of Motion (L) No. 2304 of

2018 seeking a declaration that the purported agreement dated 15 th

September, 2015 in respect of the subject premises was illegal, null

and void and bad in law and did not bind the plaintiffs and also for a

direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 therein to take all

necessary steps to cancel the agreement dated 15 th September,

2015 by executing a necessary instrument and registering the same

before the Registrar of Assurances and that the Court Receiver be

directed to forthwith take physical possession of the subject

premises and handover the same to the plaintiffs in terms of the

order dated 13th April, 2016 and 7th August, 2018 passed by this

Court.

15. The applicants were the parties to the said Notice of Motion

and resisted the prayers therein by filing affidavits. The substance

of the resistance was that the applicants were bonafide purchasers

for value without notice of the pendency of the litigation and the

restraint orders having been passed by this Court. The subject

premises was purchased from defendant No. 3 for a valuable

consideration of Rs. 45,65,000/- under a registered instrument. To

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...7 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

finance the said acquisition, the applicants had availed a housing

loan of Rs. 28 lakhs from Punjab National Bank and the applicants

were paying the installments thereof with interest thereon. The

share certificate in respect of the subject premises was duly

transferred in the name of the defendant No. 3 in the record of the

Evershine Pine Building No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, a Co-Operative Housing

Society Ltd. (respondent No. 5), and thus the applicants had no

inkling of the alleged fraud.

16. By an order dated 5th September, 2019, this Court was

persuaded to make the above Notice of Motion absolute in terms of

the prayer clauses (a) and (c). It was declared that the agreement

for sale dated 15th September, 2015 in respect of subject premises

was illegal, null and void and bad in law and did not bind the

plaintiffs, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 therein including

the applicants were directed to take all necessary steps to cancel

the agreement for sale dated 15th September, 2015 within a period

of four weeks and, in the event of default, the Court Receiver was

directed to carry out the said exercise under the directions of this

Court. Upon cancellation of the agreement, the Court Receiver was

further directed to forthwith take physical possession of the subject

premises with the assistance of local police and hand over the same

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...8 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

to the plaintiff and, thereafter, make a report as to possession of the

subject flat.

17. The applicants thereafter took out these applications for the

aforesaid reliefs. Additionally, an appeal was preferred by the

applicants assailing the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 5 th

September, 2019. By a judgment and order dated 8 th September,

2022, in Appeal No. 88 of 2020, the Appeal Bench was persuaded to

dismiss the appeal. The Appeal Bench, inter alia, observed that in

the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid order passed

by this Court on 5th September, 2019 was the only order that could

have been passed on such an application and the Court could not

countenance the continued subversion and undermining of the

sanctity of the orders passed by this Court. And opining thus,

application for continuation of ad-interim relief was also rejected.

18. The applicants, who had preferred these applications

immediately after the order dated 5th September, 2019, moved these

applications only after the dismissal of Appeal No. 88 of 2020.

19. I have heard Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned counsel for the

applicants, Mr. Rohaan Cama, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...9 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

and Ms. Kranti Anand, learned counsel for defendant Nos. 2 to 4 at

some length. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

parties, I have perused the material on record including the

averments in the plaint, the prayers in the Notices of Motion, which

bear upon the issue sought to be agitated, and the orders passed by

this Court and Appeal Bench.

20. Ms. Neeta Karnik, the learned counsel for the applicants

made a strenuous effort to persuade the Court to consider the

consequences which would befall the applicants who, according to

her, are unsuspecting bonafide purchasers of the subject premises

for valuable consideration. Ms. Karnik made an endevour to

premise her submissions on equitable consideration. It was urged

that the transaction which the applicants had with defendant No. 3

has all attributes of a bonafide transaction. Firstly, it was for an

optimum consideration of Rs. 45,65,000/-. Secondly, the applicants

have availed loan from Pubjab National Bank to finance the

acquisition and that rules out any surreptious transaction. Thirdly,

the share certificate would reveal that subject premises stood in the

name of defendant No. 3 and there was no material to demonstrate

that the applicants had remotest notice of the pendency of the

proceedings and/or the orders passed therein.

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...10 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

21. Ms. Karnik would further urge that these factors are

required to be considered in conjunction with the nature of the

reliefs claimed in the suit. Evidently, the suit is for recovery of the

money which was allegedly fraudulently defalcated by defendant

No. 2. Immovable property is not at all the subject matter of the

suit. In fact, in the Notice of Motion (L) No. 2659 of 2014, the

plaintiffs had prayed for a direction to the respondents to deposit

the booking amount of the properties mentioned in the schedule,

including the subject premises, received by them from defendant

No. 2 or any of the defendants and, thereafter, the plaintiff be

allowed to withdraw the said amount. Thus, the plaintiffs prime

prayer was to chase and recover the money fraudulently withdrawn

from the account of the plaintiffs by defendant No. 2.

22. In the circumstances, Ms. Karnik would urge that the

applicants can be relived of the predicament of being thrown on the

street, despite having parted with huge consideration, by directing

the applicants to deposit the amount which was received by

Evershine Builders Private Limited (respondent No. 1) from

defendant No. 3 along with interest as may be determined by the

Court.

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...11 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

23. Mr. Cama, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs stoutly

resisted the submission on behalf of the applicants. The applicants,

according to Mr. Cama, do not deserve any equitable relief as the

applicants have moved these applications only after dismissal of the

appeal by the Appeal Bench. Secondly, all the contentions, which

Ms. Karnik now presses into service, were canvassed before this

Court in Notice of Motion (L) No.2304 of 2018 and also before the

Appeal Bench in Appeal No. 88 of 2020 and those submissions have

been thoroughly considered and repelled. Therefore, at this

juncture, according to Mr. Cama, the applicants cannot be

permitted to re-agitate the same contentions. Mr. Cama further

urged that the core issue that comes to the fore in these proceeding

is, can a Court countenance a brazen disobedience of the orders

passed by the Court to protect the subject matter awaiting the final

determination of the suit. If the parties are permitted to flout the

orders of the Court, with impunity, and then claim reliefs based on

equitable considerations, the very integrity of the judicial process

would be subverted, urged Mr. Cama.

24. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid

submissions.

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...12 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

25. To start with, at this stage, it can hardly be contested that the

subject premises was professed to be transferred under the

agreement dated 15th September, 2015, in teeth of the orders passed

by this Court. In the order dated 5 th September, 2019, in Notice of

Motion (L) No. 2304 of 2018, this Court recorded a categorical

finding that the said agreement for sale entered into by and

between the defendant No. 3 and the applicants was in breach of the

injunction and status-quo orders and thus it was the duty of the

Court to exercise its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code

to set the wrong at naught or to treat the disobedient act not having

taken place in the first instance by restoring the status-quo ante. It

would be apposite to note, at this stage itself, to extract the

observations in paragraph No. 18 of the judgment of the Appeal

Bench in Appeal No. 88 of 2020.

18] If there be any doubt as to a particular provision under which Chagla J could have fashioned this order, we believe this is completely set to rest by the Supreme Court decision in by paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court decision in All Excise Bengal Licensees Association. We read that paragraph to mean that it is the duty of a court as a matter of policy

-- and we understand this to mean public policy -- to set right a demonstrated wrong and to not allow the perpetuation of a wrongdoing. This is the inherent power available to every court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but it is also one that is to be exercised in the interest of justice and the public interest.

                                                  (emphasis supplied)




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                                 ...13
                                                          ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

26. That aspect having attained finality, so far as this Court is

concerned, the applicants now seek the modification of the order

passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No. 2538 of 2011 dated 13 th

April, 2016, extracted above.

27. Ms. Karnik, sought to bank upon the the nature of the suit to

draw home the point that in the absence of the substantive relief of

delivery of possession of the subject premises, by way of interim

order, the applicants cannot be dispossessed of the subject premises

and, in any event, the suit being primarily for recovery of the

money of which the plaintiff were allegedly defrauded, at best, the

Court could have directed the Evershine Builders Private Limited

(respondent No. 1) to deposit the booking amount which was

received from defendant No. 3.

28. I am afraid in the absence of any challenge to the order passed

by this Court on 13th April, 2016, at this length of time, the

applicants would be justified in seeking the recall of the said order

of allowing the plaintiffs to pay the balance consideration, take over

the possession of the subject premises and occupy the same in the

capacity of the agent of the Court Receiver and also enjoy the fruits

thereof, for the only reason that there was an alternative prayer of

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...14 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

direction to Evershine Builders Private Limited (respondent No. 1)

and other respondents to bring back the amount which was

deposited by defendant No. 2. In fact, in the order dated 13 th April,

2016, this Court categorically recorded that there was

overwhelming prima facie evidence to show that the properties

have been acquired from out of funds fraudulently siphoned off

from the accounts of the plaintiffs by breach of trust and forgery.

29. Mr. Cama is justified in canvassing a submission that, the

submission now forcefully canvassed by Ms. Karnik, about the

nature of the suit was considered by the learned single Judge while

passing the order dated 5th September, 2019 and also by the Appeal

Bench in Appeal No. 88 of 2020.

30. The observations in paragraph Nos. 10 and 13 of the judgment

in Appeal No. 88 of 2020 constitute a complete answer.

10] Ms Karnik's submission that one should look to the nature of the plaint does not impress us at all. We are concerned here with something that is far more fundamental. namely the sanctity of orders of the court. These are not to be treated as suggestions. Parties are not at liberty to offer undertakings and then act in breach of them thereby turning orders that accepted the undertakings into so much dust. ............ ...........

13] We believe Ms Karnik's submission might suffer from the law of unintended consequences. If the principle that she canvasses is to be accepted, then

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...15 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

even receivership is immaterial, and a party is always at liberty to transact a property that is in custodia legis. An order of an injunction cannot logically stand on any other footing. An order of a court is an order of a court, and it cannot be allowed to be undermined. Nothing strikes at the authority of a court as much as a refusal or a failure to abide by its orders. We are being asked today to hold that precisely such a violation by Mumtaz is perfectly all right and indeed is not illegal. This is in the teeth of settled law.

(emphasis supplied)

31. Indeed, in prayer clause (c) of the plaint, the plaintiffs have

prayed for the liquidation of the assets acquired by the defendant

Nos. 2 to 4 by means of the funds fraudulently siphoned off. Ms.

Karnik's submission also losses sight of the fundamental fact that

the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had no title to the money which was

utilized to book the subject premises. In the orders referred above,

it has been noted by this Court that, prima facie, legitimate title to

the said money vested in the plaintiffs. All the accruals and

accretions thus legitimately belong to the plaintiffs. Viewed from

this perspective, the submissions on behalf of the applicants that

the plaintiffs are only entitled to the money which was deposited by

the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 with Evershine Builders Private Limited

(respondent No. 1) and not the property which was acquired by

utilizing the said money, does not merit countenance.

32. Lastly, the submission on behalf of the applicants based on

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...16 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

the consequences, which the execution of the order passed by this

Court on 5th September, 2019 would entail, should persuade the

Court to direct the alternative course of action, as suggested by the

applicants, also do not merit acceptance as implicit in the said

course of action is the unintended consequence of undermining and

eroding the sanctity of the judicial orders passed by the Court.

Therefore, at this juncture, in the face of two orders of this Court

dated 13th April, 2016 passed in Notice of Motion No. 395 of 2012

and 5th September, 2019 passed in Notice of Motion (L) No. 2304 of

2018, it would be impermissible to entertain the prayers of the

applicants to appoint them as the agents of the Court Receiver.

33. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Cama that all these

submissions, premised on equitable consideration, which were

urged with a degree of vehemence before this Court have been duly

considered by the Appeal Bench.

34. It would be suffice to extract the observations in paragraph

22 of the judgment of the appeal Bench. It reads as under :-

22] Ms Karnik states that there was interim protection granted by a previous division bench of this court at the ad-interim stage on 8 th November 2019. She seeks a continuance. Given the facts of this case, we are not inclined to continue the ad-interim protection. There is no case made out in law at all.

Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...17 ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

Equity lies against the Appellants. More than anything else, the application is an attempt to continue a subversion of the authority of the Court. Ms Karnik says that the Appellants have taken a loan and are paying EMIs. That is totally irrelevant. But if there was loan from a bank, it is inconceivable that full and proper title search was not done and that there was no public notice or none of the usual precautions were taken. Mr Karnik then says the Appellants could not possibly have known of Ganoo J's order. Even that is wrong. Every person in this commercial capital who transacts with property knows or is must be presumed to know precisely what he or she is doing. It was the obligation of these Appellants to check that Mumtaz did in fact have marketable title, i.e., title that was unclogged. The document in question is not of the kind as would be made by a person who is illiterate. It is a formal agreement for sale with witnesses and the three Appellants have all signed in addition to the mandatory thumb print procedure. The amounts paid were by cheque as can be seen. Ms Karnik then says that even the share certificates were transferred to the name of Mumtaz and therefore the Appellants had no way of knowing. We would have expected the shares to stand in the name of Mumtaz. It is unreasonable to say otherwise. But as Mr Cama points out even a cursory check with the society would have revealed that orders of this court were notified to the society itself. As to Ms Karnik's question about how the Appellants could have found out about orders of the court, perhaps the less said the better. This is not the only property in litigation and routine checks are conducted in a manner known to advocates about properties that are the subject matter of litigation. More particularly, as Mr Cama points out and perhaps in a very telling circumstance, the Appellants have made no application of any kind whatsoever nor brought any proceeding as at least as far as this record discloses against Mumtaz. The Appellants have got away with this for too long. A continued subversion and undermining of the sanctity of orders of this court cannot be tolerated. The Application for continuation of the ad-interim relief is rejected.

                                                 (emphasis supplied)



Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                               ...18
                                                        ia-159-2019 @ 160-2019.doc

35. To conclude, the Court can only note that a party who enters

into the transactions in respect of the property which is the subject

matter of the proceeding, in the face of the orders of the Court

affecting such property, does so at his own peril and can blame none

than the self. The applicants can very well resort to the remedies

which are available in law against their transferor. Resultantly, the

prayers in none of the applications deserve to be countenanced.

Hence, the following order.

ORDER

Interim Application Nos. 159 OF 2019 and 160 of 2019 stand

dismissed with costs.

                                         (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                       ...19