[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Official Liquidator Of Zenith Infotech ... vs The Bank Of New York Mellon, London ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR'S REPORT NO. 81 OF 2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 28 OF 2012
Official Liquidator of Zenith Infotech Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Bank of New York Mellon, London Br. ...Respondent
Mr. Muttahar Khan for the Official Liquidator with Mr. Anil Bhagure,
Deputy Official Liquidator.
Ms. Cheryl Fernandes i/b AZB & Partners for the Petitioner.
Mr.M. S. Bhardwaj with Mr. Shinde. S. ADC for the .C. Seepz-
Intervenor-Applicant.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 27th MARCH, 2026
P.C. :
1. When the matter is called out, Mr. Khan, learned Counsel
appearing for the Official Liquidator submits that although not
recorded in the order dated 13 th March, 2026, in order to find takers
for the goods (electronic items) lying in the 005, ground floor, Multi-
Storey Building, SEEPZ, Andheri (East), Mumbai (the "said premises"),
this Court had granted time to the Official Liquidator till today and in
pursuance thereof the Official Liquidator had been approached by M/s
Proaucs India to inspect the said movables lying at the said premises.
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
2. Mr. Khan submits that thereafter, pursuant to the order of the
Official Liquidator dated 25th March, 2026, the representatives of the
Official Liquidator visited the said premises to provide inspection to the
representative of M/s Proaucs India on 25 th March, 2026 itself. At
around 3.10 p.m., the representative reached gate no. 1 of SEEPZ,
Andheri (E), Mumbai and met with the security officials and informed
the purpose of their visit and also showed the office order issued by the
Official Liquidator to one Mr. Rahul, ADC of SEEPZ, whose number was
provided by Mr. Aman Kumar Sharma, ADC, who was looking at this
matter earlier and requested the ADC to inform the security officials to
allow the representatives of the Official Liquidator and M/s Proaucs
India to enter the premises. That, thereafter, the representatives
entered the SEEPZ premises. Mr. Rajendra Shinde of M/s Proaucs India
entered the premises at around 3.30 p.m.
3. Mr. Khan submits that thereafter, to the surprise of the
representatives of the Official Liquidator the seal and lock of the
Official Liquidator were not to be found and another new lock was
found at the main gate at the entry point of the said premises on the
ground floor of the company in liquidation. Mr. Khan submits that,
thereafter, the representatives inquired with the office boy and he
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
informed that about some days back 3-4 persons came and removed
the seal, lock and chain of the entry point of the said premises and
entered inside the premises and that all such activities were recorded in
the CCTV camera installed in front of the Room No. 005. Mr. Khan
submits that, thereafter, the representatives of the Official Liquidator
again called Mr. Rahul, ADC of SEEPZ to inform of this incident and to
know how such an incident had occurred and also asked whether he
had any idea about this incident. It is submitted that over the telephone
Mr. Rahul informed that the seal and lock of the Official Liquidator was
removed / broken open with the authority letter of the Joint
Development Commissioner of the SEEPZ, Andheri and also requested
to meet Mr. Sudarshan Shinde, ADC, SEEPZ for further information.
That, thereafter, the representatives called Mr. Sudarshan Shinde and
informed him about the incident and tried to gather information
whether he had any idea about the incident and also requested him to
come in front of the said premises of the company in liquidation. Mr.
Khan submits that Mr. Sudarshan Shinde replied that he had no idea
about this incident and assured that he would call the relevant person
to gather the information. That after 15 minutes the Official
Liquidator's representative again called him to know whether he was
coming in front of the said premises or not and he said that he had
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
called for the papers and requested the representative to visit his office.
Mr. Khan submits that, thereafter, the Official Liquidator's
representative reached in the chamber of Mr. Sudarshan Shinde, ADC,
SEEPZ and he informed that such kind of breaking open and removal of
the seal and lock of the Official Liquidator was very unfortunate and
without any prior intimation / approval of the Official Liquidator. Mr.
Khan submits that in between the discussion, the ADC received the
documents and informed that the incident of breaking open and
removal of seal and lock of the Official Liquidator occurred on 17 th
March, 2026 was with directions/authority of the Joint Development
Commissioner of SEEPZ, Andheri and the entire incident had been
recorded in the panchanama prepared on that date.
4. Mr. Khan submits that the representatives informed that they
would submit their minutes / report to the Official Liquidator recording
the incident for further directions. Mr. Khan submits that in view
thereof the representatives of the Official Liquidator could not provide
inspection to the representatives of the intending purchaser of M/s
Proaucs India pursuant to the order.
5. Mr. Khan submits that the Official Liquidator's office has
prepared minutes / report dated 25th March, 2026 with respect to the
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
said incident and tenders across the bar the said minutes / report.
Referring to the said report, Mr. Khan draws this Court's attention to
the photographs at Annexure-A, which contain the lock without a seal
and compares the same with the two photographs at previous photos 1
and 2, which contained lock with seal in support of his contentions. A
perusal of the same clearly suggests that the seal and lock of the
Official Liquidator has been removed.
6. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in
the Interim Application viz. for the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ,
at the outset apologizes for the said removal of the seal and lock of the
Official Liquidator without prior intimation / approval of the Official
Liquidator, submitting that the same has happened due to
miscommunication between the legal cell and the estate department
and seeks to tender across the panchanama dated 17 th March, 2026 on
behalf of the Development Commissioner.
7. A perusal of the said panchanama indicates that an authorisation
dated 16th March, 2026 was issued by the DDC / Estate Officer, SEEPZ-
SEZ for breaking open the lock of unit no. 005 viz. the said premises
and for preparing an inventory of the materials lying inside. The
panchanama records that the main entry of the said unit in premises
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
no. 005 was find locked with a shutter and glass door. That the said
lock was cut open in front of the panchas along with the officers. Upon
entering, the said officials started preparing the inventory of the
materials kept inside the said premises, inventorised the items as
evidenced in Annexure-A to the panchanama and put their signatures
on the said annexures. That during the proceedings of the panchanama
caretakers took photographs of the said premises which have been
attached to the panchanama. It has been recorded that the
panchanama started at 12.43 p.m. on 17 th March, 2026 and concluded
at 5.50 p.m. on the same day and at the same place without any
untoward incident and was conducted in peaceful and systematic
manner with no damage to any movable and immovable property as
well as the materials kept inside the said premises. That nothing was
taken over by the said officers.
8. From the panchanama it is clear that after the passing of the
order dated 13th March, 2026 an authorisation dated 16th March, 2026
to the break open the lock to unit number 005 viz. the said premises
under the possession of the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay
was issued and thereafter, the cutting of the lock was carried out
without any prior intimation to the Official Liquidator, High Court
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
Bombay or the permission of the Official Liquidator of the High Court,
Bombay or without any leave of this Court.
9. Mr. Khan has also drawn this Court's attention to the order dated
29th April, 2025 of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the Application
filed on behalf of the SEEPZ, submitting that no order has been passed
in favour of the Development Commissioner or the SEEPZ to break
open the said premises and to inventorise the articles / movables
therein. Mr. Khan has drawn this Court's attention to paragraph 3 of
the said order and submits that this Court was clearly of the opinion
that instead of the movables being temporarily shifted to the rented
premises,it would be appropriate that immediate steps are taken for
valuation and disposal of the movables, so that the said premises can
be handed over to the Applicant-SEEPZ.
10. Drawing this Court's attention to paragraph-4 of this order, Mr.
Khan submits that in view thereof this Court had permitted the Official
Liquidator to appoint a valuer from its panel to prepare a valuation
report in respect of the movables lying in the said premises and
thereafter, permitted the Official Liquidator to move an appropriate
report seeking directions for disposal of the movables, so that the said
premises could be vacated at the earliest for being handed over to the
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
Applicant-SEEPZ.
11. Mr. Khan submits that the valuation exercise was carried out and
also the terms and conditions of the sale approved by this Court on 23 rd
June, 2025 and permission for sale by e-auction granted. Mr. Khan
submits that since no bids were received, the Official Liquidator's
Report No. 81 of 2025 was moved before this Court seeking various
directions including a directions to conduct a fresh valuation and if that
was not permitted to make one more attempt to sell the
movables/assets at the said premises on "as is, where is, whatever in
there is basis", through e-auction based on the revised reserved price as
deemed fit and proper by this Court.
12. Mr. Khan submits that after hearing the parties on 13 th March,
2026, as submitted earlier, this Court had granted time of two weeks to
the Official Liquidator to identify and get intending purchaser to
inspect the said movables at the said premises and the same was
agreed to by Mr. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel appearing for the
Development Commissioner, SEEPZ.
13. A perusal of the order dated 13th March, 2026 itself indicates that
Mr. Bharadwaj had in fact agreed that the matter be stood over to 27 th
March, 2026, which is today.
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
14. Very curiously, therefore, between 13 th March, 2026 and today by
an authorisation dated 16th March, 2026, on 17th March, 2026 the seal
and the lock of the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay has been
cut and the items inventorised as noted in the panchanama tendered
across the bar by Mr. Bharadwaj. In my view, the authorisation as well
as cutting of the lock, in other words, breaking of the seal and lock is
illegal and is a contempt in the face of the Court which needs to be
dealt with severly with consequences under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. But before doing that considering the seriousness of the
matter, this Court is of the view that the assistance of the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India be requested for.
15. Accordingly, let the Additional Solicitor General of India address
this Court in the matter on the next date on behalf of the Development
Commissioner SEEPZ before this Court passes any orders.
16. Let the Development Commissioner SEEPZ, Mumbai also
personally remain present in the Court on the next date.
17. In the meanwhile, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay is
directed to by 5.00 p.m. Sunday viz. 29 th March, 2026 place a lock and
seal to the said premises no. 005, ground floor, Multi-Storey Building,
45. OLR 81-25 in CP 28-12.doc
SEEPZ, Andheri (East), Mumbai, in the personal presence of the
Development Commissioner and not in the presence of any authorised
representative and to inventorise the movables / articles lying therein
and place a report before this Court on the next date.
18. List on 30th March, 2026 First on Board.
19. Until further orders, neither the Development Commissioner nor
any of his officials or sub-ordinates to in any manner whatsoever deal
with or enter into in the said premises or in any manner interfere or
obstruct with the Official Liquidator's possession of the said premises.
Digitally
signed by
NIKITA (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.03.27
23:46:27
+0530
