Disposed¶35

Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (Huf) v. Etisalat Mauritius Ltd.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2025IA/1222/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

IA Nos. 951 & 1222 of 2025 in Company Petition No. 114 of 2012, Bombay High Court Commercial Division, Arif S. Doctor, J. (13.11.2025): Official Liquidator directed to adjudicate claims per order dated 20.06.2025 limited to service tax, electricity charges and interest; OL's insistence on readjudicating all claims, including claims already adjudicated, not accepted; liberty to OL to file report if claims not payable; Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. winding-up matter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Official Liquidator to adjudicate upon the claims of the Applicants as encapsulated in the order dated 20 June 2025, with liberty to the Official Liquidator to file an appropriate report if it is of the view that the Applicants would not be entitled to any of such claims; the Interim Application(s) disposed of in those terms. ¶35

Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (Huf) vs Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Official Liquidator is required to adjudicate only the claims of the Applicants identified in the order dated 20 June 2025 (the limited controversy of service tax, electricity charges and interest), or to readjudicate all claims made by the Applicants, including claims already adjudicated. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The order dated 20th June 2025 is clear and today remains unassailed; accordingly, the Official Liquidator is directed to adjudicate upon the claims of the Applicant as more particularly encapsulated in that order (the limited controversy of service tax, electricity charges and interest), rather than readjudicating all claims.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Official Liquidator is at liberty to file an appropriate report in the event the Official Liquidator is of the view that the Applicant would not be entitled to any of such claims, leaving the question of entitlement open for examination by the Official Liquidator.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Arif S. Doctor, J., 13 November 2025) — Interim Applications Nos. 951 and 1222 of 2025 in Company Petition No. 114 of 2012 (Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. v. Etisalat D. B. Telecom Ltd. & Ors.) — Applicants Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah and Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (HUF) complained that although the Official Liquidator, by letter dated 1st July 2025, called upon them to submit documents, their claims had not been readjudicated; the Official Liquidator took the stand that all claims would have to be readjudicated, while the Applicants relied on the order dated 20th June 2025 confining the controversy to amounts claimed of service tax, electricity charges and interest, their other claims having already been adjudicated — Held: the order dated 20th June 2025 is clear and remains unassailed; the Official Liquidator is directed to adjudicate upon the claims of the Applicants as encapsulated therein, with liberty to file an appropriate report if of the view that the Applicants would not be entitled to any such claims; Interim Application(s) disposed of. The question of the Applicants' entitlement to the claims was left open for examination by the Official Liquidator.

¶1

1/3

¶2

18-IA-951-2025.DOC

¶3

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

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 951 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO. 114 OF 2012 Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah ...Applicant In the matter between: Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus

¶7

Etisalat D. B. Telecom Ltd. & Ors.

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1222 OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 114 OF 2012

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1222 OF 2025

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (HUF) ...Applicant In the matter between: Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Etisalat D. B. Telecom Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶12

Ms. Aneesa Cheema a/w Mr. Ritik Sinha i/b Mr. Anuj Jhaveri, for the Applicant. Mr. Agastya Shreenivasan a/w Ms. Sakshi Sharma i/b Solomon & Co., for the Official Liquidator.

¶13

Mr. Satyajit Roul, for Official Liquidator.

¶14

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 13th NOVEMBER 2025

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The grievance of Ms. Cheema, learned counsel for the Applicants today that though the Official Liquidator had issued a letter on 1 st July 2025 calling

¶17

upon the Applicants to submit necessary documents to enable the Official

¶18

Vaibhav

¶19

2/3

¶20

18-IA-951-2025.DOC

¶21

Liquidator to readjudicate the claims more particularly set out in the said order, the Official Liquidator has not yet done so.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator submits that the Official Liquidator would have to readjudicate all the claims made by the Applicant.

¶23

Ms. Cheems opposes this, submitting that the order dated 20 th June 2025 was clear and had directed as follows:

¶24

"1. Considering the limited controversy involved in the present case as regards the amounts claimed of service tax, electricity charges and interest, it would be appropriate if the Official Liquidator calls upon the Applicant to submit necessary documents so that the claim can be properly adjudicated. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant is not averse to the said course.

¶25

Let the communication be addressed by the office of Official Liquidator to the Applicant setting out the documents required for the adjudication of the claim.

¶26

Stand over to 11^th July 2025."

¶27

Ms. Cheema submits that the other claims of the Applicants have already been adjudicated, and thus the question of reopening the same would not arise.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator points out that the Applicants would not be entitled to receive such claims, and it is thus that the Official Liquidator has sought to have all the claims readjudicated.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel, in my view, the order dated 20 th June 2025

¶30

is clear and today remains unassailed. Thus, the Official Liquidator is directed to adjudicate upon the claims of the Applicant as more particularly encapsulated in the said order.

¶31

Vaibhav

¶32

3/3

¶33

18-IA-951-2025.DOC

¶34

The Official Liquidator is at liberty to file an appropriate report in the event the Official Liquidator is of view that the Applicant would not be entitled to any of such claims.

¶35

The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

¶37

Vaibhav

Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (Huf) v. Etisalat Mauritius Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (Huf) v. Etisalat Mauritius Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sphingotec Gmbh vs the Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr.

Saurabh Arora vs the Controller of Patents and Designs

Raakesh Vasantlal Maniar vs Horizon Dream Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Asian Paints Limited vs Signaturre Paints Private Limited

Idbi Bank Limited vs Patanwala Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot vs Harendra Kumar