Dismissed¶48

Mamta Jagannath Shetty and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2026IA/5207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2024 — Golden Peace Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (EOW), Competent Authority, Maberest Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Shree Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd; dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- for Registry deposit benefiting investors/victims; challenge to MPID Court order on Hotel Fidalgo attachment; appellant held to have no locus standi; mere possession and unregistered MOUs confer no title; sham/backdated transaction allegations; 1841 investors defrauded of ₹203,41,56,034/-; interim applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The Appellant cannot claim any right, title, or interest in Hotel Fidalgo merely on the basis of alleged possession and two unregistered MOUs — the answer is an unequivocal no. ¶27

Mamta Jagannath Shetty and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant can claim any right, title, or interest in respect of Hotel Fidalgo merely on the basis of alleged possession and two unregistered MOUs.

¶27

Court's answer

The Appellant cannot claim any right, title, or interest in Hotel Fidalgo merely on the basis of alleged possession and two unregistered MOUs — the answer is an unequivocal no.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Appellant has no locus standi to maintain the present Appeal: mere possession of the property, or even alleged payment of substantial amounts towards discharge of the mortgage, does not by itself confer any right, title or interest; at best it gives rise to a contractual or monetary claim against Respondent No.3, enforceable only upon crystallization (for instance, through a decree of specific performance).

¶28

Key takeaways

On a cumulative reading of the documents, apart from a token amount of Rs.1,11,000/- paid on 19th September 2019, no substantive payment was made by the Appellant towards the agreed consideration of Rs.70 Crores.ratio¶35
The Deed of Cancellation dated 22nd September 2021, recording that both MOUs stood terminated and the token amount was refunded, conclusively demolishes the claim of the Appellant.ratio¶39
The Court finds substance in the intervenor's arguments that the MOU dated 19th September 2019 was allegedly backdated (as indicated in the bail application of Mr. Jayant Shetty dated 29th June 2024) and in the reference to the email dated 9th June 2020 attaching a Letter of Interest (LOI).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2024 (judgment per Kamal Khata, J., coram with A.S. Gadkari, J.; pronounced 2nd April, 2026): Golden Peace Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the MPID Court's Order dated 26th September 2024 rejecting its contention of title/possession over Hotel Fidalgo, asserting a monetary lien via payment of Rs.49,49,10,916/- towards discharge of a bank loan and possession under two unregistered MOUs dated 19th September 2019 and 23rd November 2020. The Court held the Appellant had no locus standi: mere possession or such payments confer no right, title or interest, enforceable interest arising only upon crystallization (e.g., a specific-performance decree). Scrutiny showed only a token payment of Rs.1,11,000/- against the stipulated consideration of Rs.70 Crores; the Supplemental MOU conditioned Rs.5 Crores on permissions from the competent authority and Court; a Deed of Cancellation dated 22nd September 2021 recorded termination of both MOUs and refund of the token amount, demolishing the claim; a bail application dated 29th June 2024 suggested the 2019 MOU was backdated. The Court found the transaction a sham detrimental to victims and, noting the Appellant's refusal to purchase at market value exceeding Rs.300 Crores, concluded the proceedings obstructed attachment and sale. Background: FIR of 6th January 2020 (Ss.3-4 MPID Act; Ss.120B, 406, 409, 420 IPC) and EOW chargesheet showing 1841 investors defrauded of ₹203,41,56,034/- by M/s Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be deposited in the Registry for investors/victims and placed in fixed deposit; interim applications disposed as nothing survived.

¶1

sns 1-cr.apeal-1157-2024-J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1157 OF 2024

¶4

Golden Peace Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. ] A company incorporated under the ] Companies Act, 2013 having its registered ] office at Hotel Neo Majestic, ] Plot No.104/1A, Opposite Azad Bhavan, ] Porvorim, Bardez, Goa — 403521, ] Represented herein by its AUTHORISED ] REPRESENTATIVE MR. SHRINIVAS P. ] NAYAK ] … Appellant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

1.	The State of Maharashtra (Through EOW, Mumbai)	] ]
2.	The Competent Authority office of the Deputy Collector (Encroachment Removal) Having his office at Bhandup, Mumbai- 400 0078	] ] ] ] ]
3.	Maberest Hotels Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Hotel Fidalgo 18^thJune Road, Goa- 403001 also having its corporate office at 702, Advent Atria, Chincholi Bandar Road Opposite Keston Heights, opposite Vivantato Hospital, Malad W- 400064	] ] ] ] ] ] ]
4.	Shree Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd. Having its office at 11, Gowind Bhawan, Chincholi Naka, Malad (W) S.V. Road, Mumbai- 400064	] ] ] ]	… Respondents.

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4483 OF 2024 WITH

¶8

1/6

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2026.04.02 15:00:56 +0530

¶10

sns 1-cr.apeal-1157-2024-J

¶11

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5207 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4463 OF 2025 WITH

¶12

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4829 OF 2024

¶13

Mr. Parag Rao a/w. Mr. Jay Suryavanshi, Ms. Nikita Gawai i/by Mr. Rahul Arote for the Appellant.

¶14

Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶15

Mr. Manan Sanghai a/w. Ms. Paavani Chacha, Mr. Paarth Singh for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶16

Mr. Vishal N. Nevshe a/w. Mr. Ravi Kotian i/by Ms. Mallika R. Pujari for the Applicant in IA/5207/2024.

¶17

Mr. Nikhil Daga a/w. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Ms. Priya Maurya for the Applicant in IA/4463/2025.

¶18

Mr. Mutahar Khan a/w. Mr. Sachin Mhatre, Ms. Ishita Kamath, Ms. Rishika Mehra i/by Mhatre Law Associates for the Intervenor in IA/4829/2024.

¶19

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 25^th March, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 2^nd April, 2026.

¶20

Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-

¶21

By this Appeal, the Appellant seeks to challenge the impugned Order dated 26^th September 2024, whereby the MPID Court rejected the contention of the Appellant that it had any legal right to claim title or possession over the property known as Hotel Fidalgo.

¶22

The Appellant asserts that, it has a monetary lien over the said property on account of payment of a sum of Rs.49,49,10,916/-, allegedly towards discharge of the Bank loan, thereby freeing the property from mortgage. It is further claimed that the Appellant is in possession of the property on the basis of two Memorandum of Understandings dated 19^th

¶23

2/6

¶24

sns 1-cr.apeal-1157-2024-J

¶25

September 2019 and 23^rd November 2020. The MPID Court, however, rejected these contentions, holding that no title had passed to the Appellant on the basis of the said MOUs.

¶26

We have heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and have carefully perused the record.

¶27

The short question which arises for consideration is whether the Appellant can claim any right, title, or interest in respect of Hotel Fidalgo merely on the basis of alleged possession and two unregistered MOUs. The answer is in our view, is an unequivocal no.

¶28

In our view, the Appellant has no locus to maintain the present Appeal. Mere possession of the property, or even the alleged payment of substantial amounts towards discharge of the mortgage, would not, by itself, confer any right, title, or interest in the property. At best, such a claim would give rise to a contractual or monetary claim against the owner, i.e. Respondent No.3. It is only upon crystallization of such rights, for instance through a decree of specific performance, that the Appellant could assert any enforceable interest in the property. In the absence thereof, the Appellant cannot maintain the present Appeal. In view of this core issue, we have declined to entertain the other grounds urged in the Appeal by Mr. Rao.

¶29

Even otherwise, a closer scrutiny of the two MOUs dated 19^th September 2019 and 23^rd November 2020, as brought to our attention by

¶30

3/6

¶31

sns 1-cr.apeal-1157-2024-J

¶32

the learned APP Mr. Yagnik, militates against the case of the Appellant. The MOU dated 19^th September 2019 executed between Mr. Jayant Shetty in his capacity as the Managing Director of Maberest Hotels Private Limited and Mr. K. C. Veerendra in his personal capacity, stipulated that the entire consideration of Rs.70 Crores was to be paid and the sale completed within six months, i.e. on or before 18^th March 2020.

¶33

Significantly, an FIR came to be registered on 6^th January 2020 against the company and its directors, including Mr. Jayant Shetty, under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and Sections 120B, 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC.

¶34

The Supplemental MOU dated 23^rd November 2020, executed thereafter, between the same parties, clearly indicates that the purchaser was fully aware of the said FIR and the ongoing proceedings before the Economic Offences Wing. Clause 1(b) thereof stipulates that payment of Rs.5 Crores was conditional upon obtaining permission from the competent authority and the concerned Court. Clause 5(b) further required completion of the transaction within six months, i.e. by 22^nd May 2021.

¶35

A cumulative reading of the aforesaid documents reveals that, apart from a token amount of Rs.1,11,000/- paid on 19^th September 2019, no substantive payment was made by the Appellant towards the agreed consideration of Rs.70 Crores.

¶36

Furthermore, the Deed of Cancellation dated 22^nd September

¶37

4/6

¶38

sns 1-cr.apeal-1157-2024-J

¶39

2021, executed between Mr. Jayant Shetty in his capacity as the Managing Director of Maberest Hotels Private Limited and Mr. Veerendra Channabasappa Kondlahalli son of late K. C. Veerendra in his personal capacity, records that both MOUs stood terminated and that the token amount was refunded. This conclusively demolishes the claim of the Appellant.

¶40

It is also brought on record, through the bail application of Mr. Jayant Shetty dated 29^th June 2024, as brought to our attention by Mr. Khan for the intervenor, that the MOU dated 19^th September 2019 was allegedly backdated. Reference is also made to an email dated 9^th June 2020 attaching a Letter of Interest (LOI) addressed by K.C.Veerendra to Shobit Shetty of Hotel Fidalgo. We find substance in the arguments of Mr. Khan.

¶41

These circumstances prima facie indicate that, the Appellant has wrongfully and by sheer deceit taken possession of the hotel and appropriated the income therefrom without paying any consideration to the lawful owners. In our view, the alleged transaction is nothing but a sham and it is detrimental to the interest of the victims of Crime.

¶42

Be that as it may, even independently of these allegations, the Appellant has failed to establish any legal right to maintain the present Appeal.

¶43

1. The present case involves 1841 investors who, according to the

¶44

5/6

¶45

sns 1-cr.apeal-1157-2024-J

¶46

chargesheet filed by the EOW, were defrauded by M/s Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., acting through its directors, of an aggregate amount of 203,41,56,034/-. ₹

¶47

We may also note that, in the larger interest of investors/ victims and also in the interest of justice, an opportunity was extended to the Appellant to purchase the property at the prevailing market value, stated to be in excess of Rs.300 Crores. The Appellant straightly/outrightly declined the said offer. This conduct further reinforces the conclusion that, the present proceedings are an attempt to obstruct the statutory process of attachment and sale of the property.

¶48

In the circumstances, we find that, the Appeal is wholly devoid of merits. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,00,000/-. The said costs shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court for the benefit of the investors/ victims.

¶49

The Registry shall place the money in a fixed deposit until the final outcome of the matter.

¶50

In view of the disposal of the Appeal, nothing survives in the Interim Applications and the same are also disposed off.

¶51

(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.).

¶52

6/6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 26th September 2024 rejecting the Appellant's contention that it had any legal right to claim title or possession over the property known as Hotel Fidalgo.¶21
MPID Court · 26th September 2024
Prior proceeding
FIR registered on 6th January 2020 against the company and its directors, including Mr. Jayant Shetty, under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and Sections 120B, 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC.¶33
Prior proceeding
Execution of MOU dated 19th September 2019 between Mr. Jayant Shetty (Managing Director, Maberest Hotels Private Limited) and Mr. K. C. Veerendra (in his personal capacity).¶32
Prior proceeding
Terms of the MOU dated 19th September 2019: entire consideration of Rs.70 Crores to be paid and the sale completed within six months, i.e. on or before 18th March 2020.¶32
Prior proceeding
Supplemental MOU dated 23rd November 2020 between the same parties; purchaser fully aware of the FIR and ongoing EOW proceedings; Clause 1(b) stipulated payment of Rs.5 Crores conditional on permission from the competent authority and concerned Court; Clause 5(b) required completion within six months, i.e. by 22nd May 2021.¶34
Prior proceeding
Deed of Cancellation dated 22nd September 2021, executed between Mr. Jayant Shetty (MD, Maberest Hotels Private Limited) and Mr. Veerendra Channabasappa Kondlahalli (son of late K. C. Veerendra, in personal capacity), recording that both MOUs stood terminated and the token amount was refunded.¶39
Prior proceeding
Bail application of Mr. Jayant Shetty dated 29th June 2024 (brought on record by the intervenor) indicating the MOU dated 19th September 2019 was allegedly backdated; reference to an email dated 9th June 2020 attaching a Letter of Interest (LOI) addressed by K.C. Veerendra to Shobit Shetty of Hotel Fidalgo.¶40
Prior proceeding
According to the chargesheet filed by the EOW, 1841 investors were defrauded by M/s Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., acting through its directors, of an aggregate amount of ₹203,41,56,034/-.¶46
Prior proceeding
Opportunity extended to the Appellant to purchase the property at prevailing market value stated to be in excess of Rs.300 Crores; the Appellant straightly/outrightly declined the offer.¶47

Mamta Jagannath Shetty and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Jagannath Shetty and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Chandiram Datwani vs Kripa Oneness Private Limited

Irfan Mustafa Landge @ Zaki @ Vicky @ Fahad @ Kabeer Deshmukh @ Kamran @ Salman @ Ashok vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay @ Prakash Bhausaheb Ovhal vs State of Maharashtra

Rushikesh (Bhaiyya)Sharad Suryawanshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vanita Harish Shetty and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vanita Harish Shetty and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.