Allowed

Sakib Rasheed Maskati and Anr. v. M/S Parasrampuria Plantations Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2023APEAL/654/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an MPID Court order directing appellants to deposit interest on a principal sum. The High Court held that since appellants are bonafide purchasers not involved in the proceedings, the direction to pay interest from the original agreement date is unjustified. The appeal was allowed, quashing the order and directing a refund of the interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the direction to pay interest and directed the MPID Court to refund the interest component aggregating to Rs.53,09,332/- to the appellants.

Sakib Rasheed Maskati and Anr. Vs M/S Parasrampuria… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:25914-DB

¶2

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶3

rrpillai

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2023

¶6

1 Sakib Rasheed Maskati

¶7

Age 63, Occupation : Business
Residing at Maskati Villa
Windy Hall Lane, Colaba
Mumbai-400 005

¶8

2 Mark Joseph Selwyn Age : 62 Occupation : Business Residing at 3, Prince Court Mereweather Road Mumbai-400 001

¶9

Appellants

¶10

 Versus

¶11

1 M/s. Parasrampuria Plantations Ltd. Having office at Regent Chambers 10^th floor, 208, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021

¶12

State of Maharashtra

¶13

Respondents

¶14

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Ms. Shyamli Hajela on behalf of M/s. H
and M Legal Associates for the Appellants.

¶15

Mr. Prashant Parsurampuria a/w. Mr. Aalam Parsurampuria i/b. Mr.
Prashant Parsurampuria for Respondent No. 1.

¶16

Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent No. 2 – State.
Mr. Jayant Gadekar -P.I, EOW, Unit 8.

¶17

1/11

¶18

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶19

CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & GAURI GODSE, JJ.

¶20

 DATE: 1st SEPTEMBER 2023

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Gauri Godse, J.) :

¶22

Heard. Admit. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

This appeal is preferred under section 11 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“ the MPID Act ”) to challenge the common judgment and order dated 3^rd April 2023 passed by the MPID Court in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1129 of 2020 and 1130 of 2020 in MA No. 106 of 2006 in MPID Special Case No. 16 of 2005, only to the extent, it direct the appellants to deposit the interest amount.

¶24

By the impugned judgment and order, the MPID Court has partly allowed the said Miscellaneous Applications filed by the

¶25

2/11

¶26

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶27

appellants for the release of their property being old Gat No. 628
(New Gat No. 377) and old Gat No. 599 Hissa no. 1 (new Ghat
No.392 Hissa no. 1) at village Awas, Alibag, Raigad (“said
property”) from attachment, subject to the appellants depositing
an amount of Rs.5,13,750/- each along with interest @ 18% p.a.
from 26th August 1994 till deposit of the said amount in the
court.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that pursuant to the said impugned order, the appellants have already deposited the amount with interest. Learned counsel further submitted that by the present appeal, the appellants are challenging only the direction against the appellants to pay interest @ 18% pa and further praying for a refund of the interest component aggregating to Rs.53,09,332/- (Rs.26,54,666/each) already deposited by the appellants.

¶29

For considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to note the following admitted facts :

¶30

3/11

¶31

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶32

 The appellants are not arraigned as accused in the MPID proceedings.

¶33

 One Mr. Gopal Hari Joglekar was the original owner of various landed properties, including the said property.

¶34

 Respondent no. 1 is an accused in the aforesaid MPID proceedings.

¶35

 Respondent no. 1 had entered into an unregistered agreement for sale with the original owner Mr. Gopal Hari Joglekar, and others on 26^th August 1994 for purchasing the said property. However, the said agreement was never specifically performed, and the earnest amount paid by respondent no. 1 pursuant to the unregistered agreement stood forfeited.

¶36

 Mr. Deepak Ambaprasad Mathur purchased various properties, including the said property, from the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner, Gopal Hari Joglekar, vide sale deed dated 7^th May 1997 registered on 7^th April 1998.

¶37

4/11

¶38

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶39

 Appellants, by separate sale deeds dated 27^th June 2006, purchased the said property from Mr. Deepak Ambaprasad Mathur.

¶40

 7^th December 2006, the Special MPID court passed an order in Miscellaneous Application No. 106 of 2006 filed by respondent no. 1 in Special MPID Case No. 16 of 2005 and issued directions for attachment of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the application filed by respondent no. 1, which included the said property. The said order dated 7^th December 2006 was passed without hearing the appellants.

¶41

 In and around the year 2020, the appellants learnt about the said ex-parte order dated 7^th December 2006. Hence, they preferred the aforesaid two Miscellaneous Applications nos. 1129 of 2020 and 1130 of 2020, thereby praying for vacating the prohibitory orders passed on 7^th

¶42

5/11

¶43

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶44

December 2006 with respect to the said property. Thus, the
appellants prayed for releasing the said property from the
purview of the order dated 7th December 2006.

¶45

By a common judgment and order impugned in the present appeal, the aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications are allowed subject to the condition directing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,13,750/ each along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 26^th August 1994 till deposit of the said amount in the court. The date of 26^th August 1994 is the date of the agreement for sale entered into by respondent no. 1 with the original owner of the said property.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants, by referring to the aforesaid admitted facts, submitted that only because respondent no. 1 claimed to have entered into an agreement for sale with respect to the said property, the Special MPID Court had ordered attachment of the properties on an application made by the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for the appellants further

¶47

6/11

¶48

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶49

submitted that admittedly neither the appellants nor the original
owners of the said property are accused in the MPID proceedings.
It is only at the behest of respondent no. 1, who is arraigned as
accused in the MPID proceedings, that the said property was
ordered to be attached.

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are bonafide purchasers of the said property and that neither the appellants nor the original owners are in any way concerned about the MPID proceeding. In spite of the aforesaid admitted facts, learned MPID Court has directed to pay interest on the principal amount sought to be secured from the date of the agreement of sale entered into by respondent no. 1 with the original owner.

¶51

Learned counsel submitted that the amount sought to be secured is the alleged amount paid by respondent no. 1 to the original owners. He submitted that so far as depositing the amount allegedly paid by respondent no. 1 to the original owners

¶52

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶53

is concerned, the appellants have shown their willingness and
deposited the said amount; however, they are aggrieved by the
further direction of depositing of the interest amount.

¶54

Learned counsel submitted that by the present appeal, the impugned judgment and order is challenged only to the limited extent it directs the appellants to pay the interest amount. He submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, the appellants have, under protest deposited the principal amount of Rs. 10,27,500/- and interest of Rs.53,09,332/-. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a direction to the appellants to deposit the interest amount is unreasonable and unfair, and hence, the appellants are entitled to a refund of the interest amount.

¶55

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 (accused in MPID proceeding) does not dispute the aforesaid facts. He submitted that respondent no. 1 has no objection if the interest amount is refunded to the appellants, as prayed.

¶56

8/11

¶57

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶58

Learned APP also does not dispute the aforesaid facts. The learned APP submitted that only on an application filed by respondent no.1, the said property belonging to the appellants were attached. The learned APP submitted that the said property is not the subject matter of the notification issued under the MPID Act.

¶59

In view of the aforesaid admitted facts and circumstances,

¶60

we do not see any reason for the learned Judge to direct the
appellants to pay the interest amount. The appellants have filed
present appeal to the limited extent of challenging the impugned
order directing them to pay the interest amount and have further
prayed for a refund of the interest amount already deposited by
them. In view of the aforesaid, we do not see any reason to direct
the appellants to pay the interest amount as directed by the
impugned judgment and order. In view of the aforesaid admitted
facts, coupled with the fact, that the said property is not the
subject matter of the notification under the said MPID Act, the

¶61

9/11

¶62

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶63

appellants are entitled to seek a refund of the interest amount as
prayed in the present appeal.

¶64

14. Considering the aforesaid admitted facts and for the reasons

¶65

recorded above, the appeal is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)
and (b) which reads as under:

¶66

“(a)That this Hon’ble court be pleased to quash
and set aside the impugned order dated 3 April
2023 passed in MA Nos. 1129/2020 and
1130/2020 in MA No. 106/2006 in MPID Special
Case No. 16/2005, to the limited extent that it
directs the Appellants to pay interest @ 18% per
annum from 26.08.1994 till date of deposit;

¶67

(b)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct
the MPID Court to refund to the appellants the
interest component aggregating to Rs.53,09,332/-
(Rs.26,54,666/- each) being the 18% interest per
annum on Rs.10,27,500/- from 26.08.1994
already deposited by the Appellants with the
Hon’ble Sessions Court and/or direct the

¶68

10/11

¶69

26-APEAL-654-2023.docx

¶70

Registrar, Sessions Court, Mumbai to refund the
same to the Appellants”.

¶71

 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶72

GAURI GODSE, J.

¶73

 REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Sakib Rasheed Maskati and Anr. v. M/S Parasrampuria Plantations Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakib Rasheed Maskati and Anr. v. M/S Parasrampuria Plantations Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Xyz Mother of Mrs. Xyz Vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Anr.

Mrs Xyz Mother of Mrs. Xyz Vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Anr.

Hemant Kedarnath Gaud Vs State of Maharashtra

Imran Hanif Soorya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satyanarayan Rajendrarao Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afzal Akhtar Sayyed Vs State of Maharashtra