Disposed¶35

Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah v. Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2025IA/951/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Official Liquidator; readjudication of claims in winding-up; Company Petition No. 114 of 2012; Etisalat Mauritius Ltd.; Etisalat D. B. Telecom Ltd.; Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah; Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (HUF); service tax; electricity charges; interest; order dated 20 June 2025; letter dated 1 July 2025; Interim Applications Nos. 951 and 1222 of 2025; Bombay High Court Commercial Division; Arif S. Doctor; direction to adjudicate claims; liberty to file report; claims already adjudicated not to be reopened.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the Applicants' claims as encapsulated in the order dated 20 June 2025, with liberty to file an appropriate report if the Official Liquidator is of the view that the Applicants would not be entitled to any of such claims. ¶35

Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah vs Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Official Liquidator was required to readjudicate all claims made by the Applicants, or only the claims (service tax, electricity charges and interest) covered by the order dated 20 June 2025, given that the Applicants' other claims had already been adjudicated.

¶28

Court's answer

The order dated 20 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, rather than readjudicating all claims afresh.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

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

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Arif S. Doctor, J., 13-11-2025): In Company Petition No. 114 of 2012 (Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. v. Etisalat D. B. Telecom Ltd. & Ors.), Interim Applications Nos. 951 and 1222 of 2025 were moved by claimants Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah and Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah (HUF), whose grievance was that, despite the Official Liquidator's letter dated 1 July 2025 calling for documents, their claims had not been readjudicated. The Official Liquidator submitted that all claims would have to be readjudicated; the Applicants objected that the order dated 20 June 2025 was clear, confined the controversy to service tax, electricity charges and interest, and that their other claims already stood adjudicated. Holding the order dated 20 June 2025 clear and unassailed, the Court directed the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the claims as encapsulated therein, with liberty to file an appropriate report if it considered the Applicants not entitled to any such claims. Interim Applications disposed of in those terms.

¶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

Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah v. Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinmay Nareshkumar Shah v. Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. and 4 Ors.

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

Qualyst Transporter Solutions Llc vs the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Jfe Steel Corporation vs the Controller of Patents and Designs

Tata Capital Limited vs Tej Pal Choudhary

Dotom Archbuild LLP vs Borivali (East) Patrakar Sadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Glider Buildcon Realtors Private Limited vs Vke Plumbing Private Limited

Shivshankar Gurushantappa Lature vs the Abhyudaya Co. Operative Bank Ltd. (a Multi State Co. Operative Society) and Anr.