Partly allowed

Sidharth Baori and 14 Ors. v. Mantri Realty Limited Cin No. U45202MH2001PLC164434

Bombay HC7 Oct 2016CA/321/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order dismissing one company application as withdrawn, partly allowing another, joining welfare society as respondent, and directing issuance of notice to SADA regarding a liquidated development project.

What did the court decide?

Company Application (L.) No. 113 of 2016 dismissed as withdrawn. Company Application (L.) No. 502 of 2016 partly allowed; Mantri City SADA Residents Welfare Society joined as Respondent No. 2.

Sidharth Baori and 14 Ors. Vs Mantri Realty Limited Cin… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

902-CAL-113-2016.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION (L.) NO. 113 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 947 OF 2014

¶6

`Siddharth Baori and 14 others` `And`	`…Applicants /` `Intervenors`
`Maharashtra Savings` `Versus`	`… Petitioners`
`Mantri Realty Limited and Another`	`…Respondents`

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO. 502 OF 2016

¶8

IN

¶9

COMPANY PETITION NO. 947 OF 2014

¶10

Mantri City SADA Residents Welfare Society…Applicants/
Intervenors
And
Maharashtra Savings… Petitioners
Versus
Mantri Realty Limited and Another…Respondents

¶11

Mr. Sanskar Marathe, for Applicant in CAL Nos. 113 and 502 of
2016.
Mr. Siddharth Murarka, with Mr. Anil Agarwal for the Petitioners in
CP No. 947 of 2014.

¶12

Mr. Onkar Chandurkar, for the Official Liquidator in the Bengaluru
and Gwalior matters

¶13

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, for the Official Liquidator in the Solapur
and Mumbai matters

¶14

Page 1 of 4
7th October 2016

¶15

902-CAL-113-2016.DOC

¶16

Ms. Yogini Chauhan, Deputy Official Liquidator present.
Mr. Sahil Mahajan, for Mantri Realty Limited for the Respondents.

¶17

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 7th October 2016

¶18

PC:-

¶19

1.Mr. Marathe appears for the Applicants in Company
Application (L) No. 113 of 2016 and Company Application (L) No.
502 of 2016 in Company Petition No. 947 of 2014. Company
Application (L) No. 113 of 2016 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Company Application No. 502 of 2016 is partly allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b). It is kept pending for consideration of the
remaining prayers. The Mantri City SADA Residents Welfare
Society shall be joined as a formal Respondent No.2 to the Petition.

¶20

2.I have over the past few months passed a series of orders
relating to projects undertaken by Mantri Realty Limited (“MRL”,
“Mantri”; “the Company”), of which the Provisional Liquidator
stands appointed, in regard to its various development and
construction projects in Bengaluru (two projects), Mumbai, Solapur
(two projects) and Gwalior.

¶21

3.This order covers the Gwalior project. This project was being
undertaken by the Company on a large tract of land admeasuring
71.77 acres obtained under a 30 years lease dated 29th August 2011
from the Special Area Development Authority (“SADA”). The
entire complex was a residential-cum-commercial development.
There was a combination of plots, villas, shops and flats, the latterin

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

7th October 2016

¶24

902-CAL-113-2016.DOC

¶25

tower residential blocks. There were 268 plot holders, 35 villa
purchasers, 36 purchasers of shop or commercial premises, and 66
purchasers of residential flats, making a total of 411 altogether.
These persons have come together to form the Mantri City SADA
Residence Welfare Society (“Society”), which I have just allowed
to be impleaded as Respondent No.2.

¶26

4.I notice that the Society has not only assessed the work done,
but also the costs required to complete the remaining construction.
A comprehensive compilation is tendered. This is to be got spiral
bound by the Associate. The compilation shows that a bare
minimum of Rs.6,52,80,000/- is required to bring the project to a
level where it is merely habitable. Complete construction as
originally envisaged would entail a cost of nearly Rs.26.5 Crores.
The society has worked out the figures and the pro rata contribution
required from each class of membership. This is included in the
compilation from pages 78 to 81.

¶27

5.Had the plot owner been an individual, there should have
been no difficulty in carrying this proposal further. But the head
lessor is a government authority, SADA. The terms of the lease
deed are quite clear. The bankruptcy of the Company, or its
liquidation are stated to be breaches of the terms of the lease. That
lease also required construction to be completed within a specified
period, one that has long since lapsed. This is another breach. The
lease deed says that on breach, the lease stands terminated and all
rights revert to SADA.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

7th October 2016

¶30

902-CAL-113-2016.DOC

¶31

6.This is a most unfortunate situation for the investors who
have put their savings into the plots, villas, shops or flats. They did
so on the basis that the lease would validly continue in MRL’s name
for the remainder of the term. Now the very basis of the entire
project is undermined. The cooperation of SADA is therefore,
essential. I have at this stage no reason to doubt that SADA, being a
responsible government agency, will not allow innocent purchasers
to suffer or their investments to be lost, and will act positively in
order to ensure, with whatever changes are reasonably possible, that
these investors and the individuals’ interests are fully protected and
secured.

¶32

7.SADA is not before me today. Let the Registry issue notice to
SADA returnable on 23rd November 2016. In addition to service
through Court, private service by the applicant society is permitted.
I expect SADA to depute a responsible officer who can state what is
the current position on the ground and identify the person or
persons who will be able to take a decision in the matter.

¶33

8.Leave also to the Applicant and the Petitioner to apply both
the matter treated as part heard, should the need arise.

¶34

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶35

Page 4 of 4
7th October 2016

Sidharth Baori and 14 Ors. v. Mantri Realty Limited Cin No. U45202MH2001PLC164434

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharth Baori and 14 Ors. v. Mantri Realty Limited Cin No. U45202MH2001PLC164434

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Lassie Mendosia and 5 Ors. Vs Anthony Mathew Dlima and 12 Ors. and Babette Pereira (Applicant)

Black Ticket Films Vs Walter Philip and Anr.

Prspctvs Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 51 Ors.

J.G.Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sunil Khanna and Anr.

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar Vs Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar Vs Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar