SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1763

VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Nehal T. Bhimjyani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate and Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshay Sahay, Ms. Shradha Narayan & Ms. Rudrakshi Dev, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Raghuwanshi & Mr. Yash Tyagi, Advocates, for the Respondent-1.
Mr. Vivek Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr. Ayush Bhatia, Advocates, for the Respondent-2.
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Mr. Ankit Kumar Vats and Mr. Rajeev Tripathi, Advocates, for the Respondent-3.
Mr. Alok Dhir, Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Karishma Malani and Mr. A.N. Mishra, Advocates, for the Respondent-4.
Mr. Arun Aggarwal and Mr. Shivam Saini, Advocates, for the Respondent-4.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Ms. Apoorva Chawdhary, Advocates, for the Respondent-5.
Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent-6.
Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Ms. Neha Verma and Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocates, for the Respondent-18.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Introduction

1. The petitioner had, pursuant to a public notice dated 27.03.2014, submitted its bid for purchase of a residential property described as "Duplex located at 10/B and 11/B, IL Palazzo CHS Ltd., 10th and 11th Floor, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai having a built-up area of 5100 sq. feet" (hereafter `the property'). The petitioner's bid for an aggregate amount of Rs.27.30 crores was accepted by the Asset Sale Committee (hereafter `the ASC') constituted in terms of the guidelines issued by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter `the BIFR') for sale of the non-productive assets of the respondent no.2 company (M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd - hereafter `SCL').

2. The petitioner also made a part payment of a sum of Rs.10.37 crores albeit belatedly and in tranches. However, SCL (through ASC) terminated the contract for sale of the property in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the part payment made by the petitioner. The ASC then proceeded to sell the property to respondent no.4 (M/s Malabar Coastal Holdings LLP - hereafter `MCHL') at a price marginally higher than the bid by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner claims t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top