2021 Supreme(Bom) 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. KATHAWALLA, MILIND JADHAV, JJ.
Rustam Phiroze Mehta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition (ST) No. 3221 of 2020
Decided On : 15-07-2021

Point of Law: Grant of Interim relief against Respondent 4 - Grant of interim reliefs is in aid of final reliefs in any proceeding, such as a Writ Petition or a Suit - In this case interim reliefs in terms of prayer which are directed against Respondent No. 4 (for deposit and injunction) and its assets, as also assets of its group entities, are clearly in aid of final reliefs seeking action by statutory authorities for realisation of undisputed amounts under Recovery Certificate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Section 263 and Section 267 - Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules, 1967 - Rule 17 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 2(d) - Petition against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Collector mandating them to comply with the Order-cum-Directions issued by Maharashtra Real Estate and Regulatory Authority - By an Order Petitioner was allowed to amend Petition and seek further ad-interim/interim reliefs against Respondent No. 4 - Marvel Sigma Homes Private Limited which reliefs are sought in aid of final relief - Whether Respondent No. 4 and its Director Shri Jhavar have interfered with administration of justice by filing false and incorrect Affidavits of Disclosure and by also violating and breaching various Orders of this Court? If so, the consequences of such breach - Whether Petitioner is entitled to interim reliefs set out in prayer clauses (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) of the present Writ Petition, especially considering that Respondent No. 4 is a Private Limited Company - Grievance in Complaint before RERA was that under Articles of Agreement dated 1st August 2014, the Petitioner paid the entire consideration of Rs. 10,61,18,790/- to Respondent No. 4 towards purchase of Flat covered car parking spaces and an open terrace and that there was a gross delay in handing over possession of said Premises. Therefore Petitioner filed the Complaint seeking return of the amount paid and interest thereon, including compensation under the aforesaid provisions of RERA.

Finding of the Court:

Respondent No. 4 and its Director, Shri Jhavar, have wilfully and deliberately breached the Courts Orders. Not only is this a case wilful disobedience our Orders but in acts of case, such wilful non-compliance and false and incomplete affidavits also tend to inter ere with the administration of justice, as these disclosures are necessary to enable us to pass effective orders in Writ Petition - Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have done nothing in discharge of their statutory duties to secure recovery of Decretal Amounts under the Recovery Certificate. Although Tahsildar issued a demand notice dated 11th September, 2019, no steps were taken especially considering that Respondent No. 4 did not reply to the notice. There are powers available to the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Code, inter-alia under Section 263 and Section 267 read with Rule 17 of Rules, 1967, to facilitate such recovery. No steps were taken pursuant to the powers available under these provisions. The Tahsildar did absolutely nothing thereafter, despite Petitioner addressing letters to the Tahsildar to take steps for making the recovery under the Recovery Certificate - Recovery of monies under Recovery Certificate, would in facts and circumstances of the present case, also be permissible against the assets of group companies, especially if non-payment of a clear undisputed amount is being illegally and dishonestly avoided, whilst at the same time very large sums of money are being raised and spent by same group or carrying on large real estate development projects. To allow such persons to defeat and frustrate the recovery of monies by individual purchasers and at same time, permit them to carry on their business as usual, would clearly undermine the rule of law and shake the confidence of the public at large - Court direct to Respondent No. 4 to deposit in this Court amount being the principal sum owed to the Petitioner, within four weeks from the date of uploading of this Order - Application for interim allowed.

Result: Writ Petition disposal of.