Bombay High Court
Mafatlal Industries Limited vs Chalasani Venkata Narsimha Rao And Ors on 22 September, 2025
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4617 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 25426 OF 2022
Mafatlal Industries Limited ...Applicant
V/s.
Chalasani Venkata Narsimha Rao and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (L) NO. 215 of 2025
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4617 OF 2025
Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho with Ms. Hiral Thakkar, Mr. Abhineet Sharma and
Ms. Riya Gokalgandhi for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Sayyed, through VC for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025
P.C. :
1. Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, today when the
matter is called out, Mr. Carvalho, learned Counsel appears for the
Applicant and submits that despite orders of this Court, till date there
have been neither any disclosures made nor any response to the show
cause notice has been filed nor any payments have been received
despite opportunities granted by this Court. Mr. Carvalho reiterates that
out of the total outstanding over Rs. 22 Crores, only Rs. 2 Crores had
been paid.
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
2. Mr. Carvalho submits that on 16th September, 2025, although the
Respondent No.3 was present in person and her lawyer appeared
through the video conferencing and had requested for time which was
granted by this Court, however, today despite directions of this Court to
the Respondent No.3 to positively physically remain present in Court,
the Respondent No.3has willfully disregarded the orders of this Court
and had failed to remain present.
3. Mr. Carvalho also points out that till date no Advocate has filed
vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, although the Advocate
continues to appear without such vakalatnama through video
conferencing.
4. On the other hand, today again Mr. Sayyed, learned Counsel
appears for the Respondent No. 3 through video conferencing. Upon a
query from the Court as to whether any vakalatnama has been filed on
behalf of the Respondent No. 3. Mr. Sayyed answers in the negative. A
look at the cause list also indicates that no vakalatnama has been filed
on behalf of the Respondent No.3.
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
5. Learned Court Associate points out that the bailable warrant of
arrest issued pursuant to the order dated 4 th August, 2025, is yet to be
executed and draws this Court's attention to a second service report
dated 20th September, 2025. A perusal of the said report indicates that
a communication was issued to the Senior Inspector of Police,
Begumpet Police Station Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Cherlapally Police
Station, Secunderabad and Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad for
the execution and the same was handed over to the Advocate for the
Applicant for the service on 10th September, 2025.
6. It is also observed from the report that pursuant to the order
dated 16th September, 2025, the Registry had issued a reminder dated
19th September, 2025 and sent the same through email to the respective
police stations and hard copy of the same again handed over to the
Advocate for the Applicant for the service on 20 th September, 2025.
That till date the Registry has not received any report of execution in
respect of the bailable warrants of arrest.
7. On 14th October, 2024, after hearing the learned Senior Counsel
for the Applicant, this Court had passed the following order:-
" 1. Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, today when the
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
matter is called out, Mr. Ankhad, learned Senior Counsel, appears
for the Applicant and submits that although an attempt was made
to serve the Respondents, only Respondent No.3 could be served,
however submitting that by order dated 8th June 2023 passed by
this Court (Coram : Bharati Dangre, J.), the Respondent No.3 has
undertaken to discharge the entire liability and that therefore,
since Respondent No.3 has been served and is not represented,
this Court may grant reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a), (f), (g)
and (h) against the Respondent No.3, which read thus :
(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the
execution application, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an
order of injunction restraining the Respondents/Judgment
Debtors, their servants and agents or any persons claiming
through them from encumbering, selling, alienating, dealing with,
transferring and/or creating any third-party rights in respect of the
properties disclosed by the Judgment Debtors on affidavit as
prayed in prayer (4) of the Execution Petition.
f) That by issuing the warrant of attachment under Order XXI
Rule 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect the bank
accounts and moveable properties / assets of the Respondents /
Judgment Debtors mentioned in the schedule of the Executive
Petition and/or disclosed pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble
Court and thereafter sale of such moveable assets/properties to
satisfy the claim of the Decree Holder due under the Arbitral
Award dated 8th March 2021 corrected on March 17, 2021.
(g) That by issuing warrant for Sale under Order XXI Rule 64
of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect of the properties of
the Respondents / Judgment Debtors and the other properties as
may be disclosed by the Respondents / Judgment Debtors
pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court.
(h) That the Decree Holder is not aware of all the movable and
immovable properties belonging and in possession of the
Respondent and therefore pending the hearing and final disposal
of the Arbitration Execution Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased
to direct the Respondents / Judgment Debtors to disclose all their
assets within a period of one week and file their affidavit stating
the particulars of their properties as per the formats and
guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s.
Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bhandari
Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Maharia Raj Joint Venture
and Ors. vide order dated 5th August 2020 including :
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
i. details of all the bank accounts of the
Defendant/Respondent/Judgment Debtor including names and
addresses of all banks,
ii. List of immovable properties standing in the name of or
otherwise owned by the Respondents / Judgment Debtors,
iii. List of all moveable properties, including furniture and fixtures
and their locations, standing in the name of or otherwise owned
by the Respondents / Judgment Debtors.
2. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and having
considered his submissions, it is observed that despite service,
none appears for the Respondent No.3. Accordingly, as far as
Respondent No.3 is concerned, prayer clauses (a), (f), (g) and (h)
as reproduced above are hereby granted.
3. Let a copy of this order be served on the Respondents and
an appropriate Affidavit of service be filed by the next date.
4. Mr. Ankhad, learned Senior Counsel, submits that in
addition to serving a copy of this order, liberty be granted to
publish in leading newspapers. Liberty is granted.
5. List on 22nd November 2024."
8. Thereafter, on 18th December, 2024, when it was submitted to
this Court that despite an injunction of this Court, the Respondent No.3
in flagrant and blatant violation of the injunction of this Court, had
gone ahead and created third party rights by way of development
agreement dated 2nd December, 2024, this Court had passed the
following order:-
"1. This matter has been circulated at the behest of the
Applicant / Decree holder in view of the urgency that despite
an injunction of this Court, the Respondent no.3 has in
flagrant and blatant violation of the injunctive orders of this
Court gone ahead and created third party rights by way of a
Development Agreement on 2nd December 2024.
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
2. Mr.Ankhad, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
Applicant would submit that earlier on 14th October 2024, this
Court had inter alia attached all the assets of the Respondents
and also injuncted the Respondents from in any manner,
whatsoever, from encumbering, selling, alienating, dealing
with, transferring and/or creating any third party rights in
respect of the said properties and despite that, by a
Development Agreement, the Respondent no.3 has on 2 nd
December 2024 registered the said agreement in favour of the
third party viz. M/s.Akshita Green Spaces LLP. Mr.Ankhad,
learned Senior Counsel, draws the attention of this Court to
Exhibit B of the additional affidavit in support of the
Execution Application which does indicate the registration
date, execution date and presentation date as 2nd December
2024 and the Respondent no.3 being one of the parties.
Mr.Ankhad submits that after the order dated 14 th October
2024, the said order was intimated to the Respondents via
email, courier as well as by way of a publication notice in the
Financial Express after which the Respondent no.3 approached
the Decree holder and informed that she was willing to settle
the matter. Mr.Ankhad would submit that only an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- out of the total liability of Rs.19 crores has
been paid thus far and soon after approaching the Applicant to
settle the matter, the Respondent no.3 has gone ahead and
entered into the transaction on 2 nd December 2024.
Mr.Ankhad would submit that the Applicant is, therefore,
apprehensive that without clearing the outstanding dues of the
Applicant, the Respondents are alienating their properties in
gross breach of the orders of this Court and that, therefore,
this Court not only direct deposit of the outstanding amount in
this Court but also issue contempt notice and secure the
presence of the Respondent no.3 in the Court on the next date.
3. Mr.A.A.Sayyed, learned Counsel, appears for the
Respondent no.3 and submits that another Rs.50 lakhs out of
the outstanding would be paid within two to three days.
Mr.Sayyed further submits that with respect to the balance
outstanding, Rs.2 crores would be paid in equal monthly
installments until the entire outstanding is paid.
4. Be that as it may, while the Respondents can continue
to make payment to the Applicant / Decree holder, the
aforesaid clearly reveals that there has been an ex-facie breach
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
of the orders of this Court and the presence of the Respondent
no.3 needs to be secured before this Court to explain as to
why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
should not follow.
5. While this order is being dictated, Mr.A.A.Sayyed,
learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondent no.3
undertakes to secure the presence of the Respondent no.3 in
Court tomorrow along with disclosure affidavit as well as the
necessary documents and a payment plan as to when the
outstanding amount as recorded in order dated 8 th June 2023
would be made.
6. In view of the aforesaid statement of the Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Respondent no.3, list the matter
first on board on 20th December 2024.
7. Let the Respondent no.3 remain present in Court as
undertaken by the learned Counsel. Let a copy of this order
also be served upon M/s.Akshita Green Spaces LLP as well as
on the Registration and Stamps Department of the State of
Telangana with a direction not to take any further steps in
furtherance of the Development Agreement, until further
orders.
8. All to act on an authenticated copy of this order."
9. In paragraph 4 as noted above, this Court had recorded that the
Respondent No.3 had been in ex-facie breach of the orders of this Court
and therefore, the Court was inclined to issue show cause notice,
however, upon an undertaking from the Advocate appearing for the
Respondent No.3 to secure her presence in Court, this Court not issued
the show cause notice but had directed the presence of the Respondent
No.3 on 20th December, 2024.
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
10. However, since on 20th December, 2024, the Respondent No.3
failed to remain present in the Court, this Court was constrained to
issue the show cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act and the
following order was passed:-
"1. Pursuant to the order dated 18th December, 2024,
today the matter has been listed First on Board.
2. When the matter is called out, Mr. Ankhad, learned
Senior Counsel appears for the Applicant and submits that
although time was granted on the earlier occasion for the
Respondent No.3 to remain present today as undertaken by
her Advocate, the Respondent No. 3 is not present in the
Court.
3. Mr. Sayyed, learned Counsel appears for the
Respondent No. 3 and submits that the Respondent No.3 is not
present as she is not well, and therefore even the disclosure
affidavit or the necessary documents as directed by the order
dated 8th June, 2023, could not be placed before this Court.
Mr. Sayyed however submits that Rs. 50 lacs were paid
yesterday to the Applicant and another Rs. 50 lacs would be
paid before the end of this month. Mr. Sayyed submits that if
some time is granted, he will ensure the third Respondent's
presence in Court after the December vacation.
4. Mr. Ankhad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Applicant would submit that no affidavit or medical
documents have been furnished before this Court to
demonstrate that the Respondent No. 3 could not remain
present in Court that she is not well. Although he admits that
Rs. 50 lacs were paid yesterday to the Applicant, Mr. Ankhad
submits that no disclosure affidavit or even the transaction
documents as referred to in the order dated 18 th December,
2024 have been furnished to the Applicant and that this Court
show no indulgence to the Respondent No.3 this time as the
Respondent No.3 has failed to remain present in Court despite
an assurance to this Court by the Advocate and despite
directions of this Court. That this Court, therefore, issue
contempt notice under the Contempt of Courts Act in view of
the ex-facie breach of the orders of this Court.
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel as well as the
learned Counsel appearing in the matter, this Court is of the
view that despite an undertaking by Mr. Sayyed, who appears
for the Respondent No.3, to secure her presence in the Court
along with disclosure affidavit as well as the necessary
documents and payments plan as to when the outstanding
amounts as recorded in the order dated 8 th June, 2023 would
be made, neither the Respondent No.3 is present in the Court
today nor any affidavit or documents or payments plan has
been placed before this Court. The Advocate has not even
made an application with supporting medical documents
submitting that the Respondent No.3 is not well. Only a casual
submission has been made that the Respondent No. 3 is not
well and therefore, could not come and that once again a
request is being made that he will secure her presence after
the vacation. To put it plain and simple neither the Advocate
nor his client can be trusted.
6. On 18th December, 2024, this Court had already
recorded in paragraph-4 that there has been an ex-facie
breach of the orders of this Court and that the presence of the
Respondent No.3 would have to be secured to explain why
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should
not follow, however, it is only pursuant to an undertaking by
the Advocate that he would secure the presence of the
Respondent No.3 in Court that this Court had refrained from
issuing notice.
7. As noted above, neither the Respondent No. 3 is here
nor any disclosure affidavit nor any documents nor any
payment plan is before this Court, despite an undertaking as
well as the direction by this Court except a statement that Rs.
50 lacs would be paid by the end of the month. The
Respondent No.3 is clearly in breach of the orders of this
Court. It needs to be stated that payments by the Respondents
to the Applicant in this piecemeal manner would not cure the
breaches of the orders of this Court or undertakings given to
this Court.
8. Accordingly, left with no choice, this Court is
constrained to direct the Registry to issue notice to the
Respondent No. 3 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to
physically remain present and show cause before this Court
on the next date as to why the proceedings under the
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
Contempt Courts Act should not follow and as to why he
should not be punished with maximum punishment of
imprisonment and fine, in accordance with the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
9. List on 21st January, 2025.
10. It is made clear that if despite notice issued by the
Registry as above, the Respondent No.3 remains absent in this
Court, this Court would be constrained to pass appropriate
orders including those to secure the presence of the
Respondent No.3 through the State Machinery."
11. Again as can be seen that this Court had directed the Respondent
No. 3 to remain present in the Court and the Respondent No.3 did not
remain present in the Court.
12. Thereafter, on 4th August, 2025, the following order was passed
directing issuance of bailable warrant:-
"1. When the matter is called out, Mr.Carvalho, learned
Counsel, appears for the Applicant and submits that although
this Court had earlier granted relief in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (h) against the Respondent no.3, however,
neither any disclosures have been made nor is the said
Respondent abiding by the injunctive orders of this Court.
Mr.Carvalho submits that the Respondent no.3 has also been
alienating the assets despite injunctive orders of this Court.
That, therefore, prayer clause (g) has become infructuous.
Mr.Carvalho also draws this Court's attention to orders dated
18th December 2024 and 20th December 2024 pursuant to
which this Court had also issued notice under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. Mr.Carvalho submits that after 20 th
December 2025, only Rs.50,00,000/- has been paid and that
today neither Respondent no.3 is present nor any one
represents him.
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
2. Mr.Carvalho submits that in view of the aforesaid,
this Court may issue bailable warrant of arrest against the
Respondent no.3.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel and having
considered his submissions and also having perused the
earlier orders of this Court, this Court deems it appropriate
to issue bailable warrant of arrest against the Respondent
no.3 in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- returnable on 16th
September 2025.
4. The Applicant to assist the Registry and furnish
details of the concerned Police station for the execution of
the bailable warrant. The Senior Police Inspector of the
concerned Police station to have the said bailable warrant
executed and secure the presence of the Respondent no.3 on
the next date.
5. Let the Respondent no.3 remain present in the Court
on the next date.
6. List on 16th September 2025.
7. Let objections to the Interim Application be removed
and registered number be obtained by the next date."
13. On 16th September, 2025, as noted above, the Respondent no. 3
was present in Court and requested the matter be kept back as her
lawyer was right there. The matter was kept back and when it was
called out, Mr. Sayyed, learned Counsel appeared through video
conferencing and submitted that he was in Andheri and could not
remain present in the Court on that day.
14. Thereafter, in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the order dated 16 th
September, 2025, this Court had recorded in brief as to how the matter
has progressed till then and that the bailable warrant of arrest in the
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
sum of Rs. 5 lacs had been issued in view of the breaches of the orders
of this Court. However, since a request was made by the learned
Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, the matter has been directed to be
listed today. In paragraph 6 of the said order, the Respondent No.3 was
directed to positively physically remain present in the Court, failing
which this Court would be constrained to secure her presence through
the State machinery.
15. It is very unfortunate that despite orders of this Court, the
Respondent No. 3 has failed to remain present in the Court and failed
to file any explanation and is willfully and deliberately disobeying the
orders of this Court. Any such attempt to disregard the majesty of the
judiciary cannot not be tolerated.
16. Accordingly, although the report of execution of the bailable
warrant is yet awaited, this Court is constrained to issue a Non Bailable
Standing Warrant against the Respondent No.3 to arrest the
Respondent No. 3 and secure her presence in the Court on the 13 th
October, 2025 for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of
this Court, despite repeated opportunities given to comply with the
same.
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
17. The Advocate appearing to file vakalatnama within a period of
one week, failing which the said Advocate or any other Advocate who
has not filed the vakalatnama will not be permitted to appear in the
matter on behalf of the any of the parties.
18. A copy of this order also be sent for aiding the execution of the
Non Bailable Standing Warrant not only to the police stations at
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, to the Begumpet Police Station,
Secunderabad, Hyderabad as well as to the Cherlapally Police Station
Secunderabad but also to the Commissioner of Police of Hyderabad
City and to the DGP of the State of Telangana.
19. List on 13th October, 2025 on the Supplementary Board.
20. All to act on an copy of this order duly authenticated by the
learned Associate of the Court.
21. After this order is passed, Mr. Carvalo submits that considering
the fact that despite the orders directing the Respondent No.3 to
remain present today, she has failed to remain present today, although
she was present in the Court when the order was being dictated and
904. IA 4617-25 in COMEXL 25426-22 @ SCNL 215-25 in IA 4617-25.doc
that therefore, since the Applicant apprehends that she is a flight risk, a
copy of this order also be sent to the immigration and custom
authorities.
22. Accordingly, let a copy of this order also be sent to the concerned
immigration and custom authorities for further necessary action in the
matter.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
