2025:BHC-AS:54768-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 16315 OF 2025

Prudent ARC Limited ….Petitioner

V/s.

Liquidator, High Court, Bombay & Ors. … Respondents

_______________________________________

Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir, Senior Counsel with Mr. Sajjad Siddique, Ms. Rubina

Khan i/b. M/s. Fortis India Law for the Petitioner

Ms. Sonali Jain for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6

Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Somesh Talla, Ms. Rupa Patel and Kadambari

Patil i/b. Ms. Pavitra Manesh for Respondent No.10

_______________________________________

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND

FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.

DATE : 11^th DECEMBER 2025

ORDER:

1. After reserving the matter for judgment on 2^nd December 2025, this Court pronounced the judgment on 9^th December 2025 in open court when the present Writ Petition was dismissed. At the time of pronouncing the judgment, Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was desirous of seeking a stay of the judgment. However, he informed us that his client had already approached the Supreme Court prior to the pronouncement of the judgment, on the basis that the same would be against them and an order was already

passed on 8^th December 2025 in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Petitioner. However, he candidly mentioned that since a copy of the said order had not yet been uploaded by the Supreme Court on the website, he was unable to tell us what reliefs had been granted therein. Accordingly, he sought liberty, which we granted, to mention the matter (for stay) after a copy of the Supreme Court order was uploaded and made available so that an appropriate application could be made, keeping in mind the contents of the said Supreme Court order.

2. Today, on 11^th December 2025, the matter was mentioned by Mr. Ardeshir at 11:00 am who orally sought to make the application for stay. He also handed over a copy of the order dated 8^th December 2025 passed by the Supreme Court. Since the said application was opposed by Mr. Karl Tamboly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Successful Auction Purchaser – Respondent No. 10 herein, we directed Mr. Ardeshir to file a praecipe and placed the matter on the circulation board at 03:00 p.m.

3. When the matter was called at 03:00 pm, Mr. Ardeshir handed over a copy of the praecipe of the today’s date seeking interim protection of stay of our judgment dated 9^th December 2025 so as to enable his client to approach the Supreme Court. He states that an SLP has already been prepared and the same is in the process of being finalised and will be filed within a day or two and accordingly has sought for stay of our judgment.

4. Mr. Ardeshir relies on the copy of the Supreme Court order dated 8^th December 2025 and submits that even when the Petitioner had approached the Supreme Court (before the judgment dated 9^th December 2025 was pronounced by this Court), the Supreme Court was pleased to entertain the Petitioner’s request and had passed an order directing that no third party rights should be created (by Respondent No. 10 herein) in the subject property before the pronouncement of the judgment by this Court. He submits that the Respondent No. 10 has already taken possession of the subject property and is in the process of the disposing of the movable property which greatly prejudices his client’s rights. Accordingly, and in view of the interim protection that was granted by the Supreme Court and which was in operation only till the judgment was pronounced by this Court (and hence, came to an end on 9^th December 2025) he requested this Court to grant a similar interim protection directing Respondent No. 10 not to create any third party rights in the subject property (both immovable and movable) for a period of two weeks.

5. Mr. Karl Tamboly appearing for Respondent No.10 vehemently opposed this application. He was at pains to point out that the Supreme Court’s order dated 8^th December 2025 came to be passed under circumstances