Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Ozone Infra Con Private Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Ozone Infra Con Private Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Court Receiver's Report No.3 of 2025 allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): Plaintiff to arrange tin sheet possession board to be affixed on the suit property; costs of the report fixed at Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the Plaintiffs. Appearances of all Respondents noted; their presence on the next date dispensed with unless the Court directs. IA No.2750 of 2024 and Contempt Petition No.24 of 2024 stood over to 27th January 2025 for the Plaintiff to take instructions and, if necessary, file an Affidavit in Rejoinder.

¶¶40 (judgment para 8)

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos.1 to 4 committed breach of the order dated 20th January 2022 passed in Interim Application (L) No.25446 of 2021 by dealing with the property given as security for the Debenture Holder's dues (Contempt Petition No.24 of 2024). +1 more

¶¶26 (judgment para 1)

Court's answer

The Court recorded the statement made on instructions from Respondent No.2 (present in Court) that the title deeds/documents in respect of the property sold to Respondent No.4 are available with the Debenture Holder, viz., IIFL Asset Management (now known as '360 ONE'); this was done at the insistence of the Applicant/Plaintiff's Senior Counsel.

¶¶33 (judgment para 4)

Ratio / Principle

The Court Receiver's Report No.3 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): the Plaintiff is to arrange a tin sheet possession board to be affixed on the suit property, and the costs of and incidental to the report are fixed at Rs.5,000/-, payable/depositable by the Plaintiffs.

¶¶40 (judgment para 8)

Key takeaways

Appearances of all Respondents were noted and marked in Court, and it was made clear that they need not remain present on the next date unless the Court otherwise directs.ratio¶¶44 (judgment para 9)
All matters (including the Contempt Petition and the Interim Application) stood over to 27th January 2025 to enable Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Plaintiff to take instructions and, if necessary, file an Affidavit in Rejoinder to the Affidavit in Reply filed to the Contempt Petition.ratio¶¶35 (judgment para 6)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Arif S. Doctor, J.) — order dated 13th January 2025 in Interim Application No.2750 of 2024 and Contempt Petition No.24 of 2024 in Commercial Suit No.18 of 2022, with Court Receiver's Report No.3 of 2025. The Court took up notices issued on 17th October 2024 calling upon Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to show cause why action should not be taken for breach of the order dated 20th January 2022 passed in Interim Application (L) No.25446 of 2021, the grievance of the Plaintiff (IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, Debenture Trustee) being that property given as security for the Debenture Holder's dues was dealt with — stated to have been sold to Respondent No.4 — in violation of that order. On instructions, Respondent No.2 stated in Court that the title deeds/documents of the said property are available with the Debenture Holder, IIFL Asset Management (now '360 ONE'); the Court recorded this statement at the Plaintiff's insistence. The Court Receiver's Report was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): the Plaintiff to arrange a tin sheet possession board for the suit property and to deposit report costs of Rs.5,000/-. Appearances of all Respondents were noted; their presence on the next date was dispensed with unless directed. Matters stood over to 27th January 2025 for the Plaintiff to take instructions and, if necessary, file an Affidavit in Rejoinder to the Reply filed in the Contempt Petition. No statute or precedent was cited; the contempt/breach issue itself remains undecided.

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2025.01.13 18:03:43 +0530

1 16-IA 2750-24 @ connected matters.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2750 OF 2024

IN

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.18 OF 2022

IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited … Applicant/Original Plaintiff In the matter of: IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited … Plaintiff V/s. Ozone Infra Con Private Limited & Ors. … Defendants And Mr. Mahesh Gowda & Anr. … Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.24 OF 2024

IN

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.18 OF 2022

WITH

COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.3 OF 2025

IN

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.24 OF 2024

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Aniruddh Gambhir i/by M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for the Plaintiff/Applicant.

Mr. Simil Purohit a/w Mr. R. Nair, Ms. Diva Shukla, Abhishek M. i/by M/s. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas for Respondents No.1 and 2 in IA No.2750 of 2024 and for Defendant No.3 in COMS No.18 of 2022 and for Respondents

Mugdha

1 of 4

2 16-IA 2750-24 @ connected matters.doc

No.1 and 2 in Contempt Petition No.24 of 2024.

Mr. N. C. Pawar, O.S.D., Court Receiver is present.

Mr. Mahesh Gowda, Respondent No.3 and Mr. Balaji, authorised representative of Respondent No.4 is present.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY 2025

P.C. :

This Court had, vide an order dated 17 th October 2024, issued notice to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to show cause as to why action for breach of the order dated 20th January 2022 passed in Interim Application (L) No.25446 of 2021 ought not to be taken as also had issued notice in Contempt Petition No.24 of 2024 for the same alleged breach.

The Plaintiff is a Debenture Trustee and the grievance is that the property, which was given as a security for the dues of the Debenture Holder, has been dealt with in violation of the order dated 20th January 2022.

All the Respondents are present in Court today. Their appearance is noted and marked.

Mugdha

2 of 4

3 16-IA 2750-24 @ connected matters.doc

Essentially submission of Mr. Purohit, Learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the property that was dealt with and sold to Respondent No.4 is yet available for the benefit of the Debenture Holder. He, on instructions from Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, makes a statement that the title deeds/documents in respect of the said property are available with the Debenture Holder, viz., IIFL Asset Management (now known as ‘360 ONE’).

Mr. Kamat, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Plaintiff insists that this statement has to be recorded. I have therefore done so.

Stand over to 27th January 2025 to enable Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Plaintiff to take necessary instructions and file an Affidavit in Rejoinder to the Affidavit in Reply filed to the Contempt Petition, if necessary.

The Court Receiver, at this stage, submits that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, he has fixed flex boards on the property in question, however the tin boards will have to be affixed on the property.

Mugdha

3 of 4

4 16-IA 2750-24 @ connected matters.doc

Hence, the Court Receiver’s Report is allowed in terms of prayer

clauses (a) and (b), which read thus:

“(a) The Hon’ble Court may pleased to pass necessary directions to the Plaintiff/Applicant to make arrangement of tin sheet possession board to affix the same on the suit property.

(b) That the costs of and incidental to this report be fixed at Rs.5,000/- and the plaintiffs may be directed to deposit the same.”

Since all Respondents have present today and noted their appearance, it is made clear that on the next date they need not to remain present in Court unless and otherwise the Court directs.

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

Mugdha

4 of 4