2026:BHC-AS:1677 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed by CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 15 OF 2020 NADAF Date:

2026.01.16

10:40:20 +0530 Thakurdas Khinvraj Rathi, a partnership firm, Rajasthan ....Petitioner V/s Official Liquidator Cals Refineries Ltd.

(in Liquidation) Ms. Sarita Joshi, New Delhi & Ors. ....Respondents ****

Mr. Vikram Deshmukh a/w. Ms. Sana Khan, Arundhati Korale i/b.

Jurisperitus Mumbai for the Petitioner.

Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w. Ms. Faiza Dhanani & Mr. Yazad Udwadia i/b.

CUE Legal for Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5.

****

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2026 P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2. This contempt petition is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the said Act’, for short) alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Konkan Division, by which in Revision Application No. 232 of 2010 filed by Respondent No.1 Company is rejected and Revision Application No. 278 of 2010, filed by the Petitioner is allowed thereby modifying the order of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (‘MRC Act’ for short) directing Respondent No.1 Company to pay arrears of compensation alongwith interest and liquidated damages with further interest thereon.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in short, is as under.

3.1) Respondent No.1 is a Company and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are its ex-directors. The Petitioner filed company petition against Respondent No.1 Company under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Code (‘I&B Code’, for short) before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, (NCLT, Delhi), which has passed an order on 10.06.2019 appointing Official Liquidator on Respondent No.1 Company.

3.2) That the Petitioner owned suit premises being Flat No.17 admeasuring 1400 sq. ft. carpet area on the 3^rd floor building known “Shanti Niketan” situated at 95A, Marine Drive, Mumbai with garage No.7. That the suit premises were given to Respondent No.1 Company on leave and license basis by a registered Leave and License Agreement dated 10.03.2008 and License and Hire Charges Agreement is of the same date. That under the said agreements, Respondent No.1 Company was required to pay yearly license fees of Rs.24,00,000/- and yearly license and hire charges of Rs.19,80,000/- for furniture and fixture. That both the agreements were for period of

5 years, expiring on 09.03.2013.

3.3) That dispute arose due to certain additions and alternations carried out by Respondent No.1 Company in the suit premises, which resulted in leakages and Respondent No.1 Company filed L.D. Suit No.250 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai praying for declaration that the said agreements are valid, subsisting and binding on the Petitioner. In the said suit, the Small Causes Court passed an order dated 17.04.2009 granting injunction against the Petitioner subject to Respondent No.1 Company paying compensation as per terms and conditions of the said agreements. The Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the amount. Respondent No.1 Company withdrew the said suit on 13.11.2009.

3.4) That the Petitioner terminated the said agreements by Advocate’s letter dated 17.12.2009 and initiated proceedings under Section 24 of the MRC Act for recovery of possession and compensation. The Competent Authority passed an order of eviction directing Respondent No.1 Company to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Petitioner and further directed arrears of compensation. Respondent No.1 Company vacated the suit premises on 01.05.2010, however, the order of payment of compensation was not complied, flouted and disregarded.

3.5) That the order of the Competent Authority was challenged by both the sides by filing revision applications under Section 44 of the MRC Act. By order dated 15.09.2010, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan D