1/5 28-IA-2424-2021 (OS).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2424 OF 2021 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 291 OF 2014 Sakti Mukherjee ...Applicant Versus The Officeial Liquidator Bomay High Court And Anr ...Respondents _______ Mr. Jehaan Mehta a/w Anjali Gupta i/b King Stubb & Kasiva for the Applicant. Mr. Rushabh Sheth, for Official Liquidator. Mr. Satyajit Roul, Official Liquidator present. Mr. Chetan Shelke, Dy. Official Liquidator present. _______ CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 23 rd JANUARY, 2026 P.C. 1. The Applicant by way of the present Interim Application has sought the following reliefs: “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Agreement dated 6th March, 2014 (Exhibit 'B' hereto) entered into between the Applicant and Respondent No.2 is legal and binding on the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ratifying, approving and sanctioning the sale by Respondent No. 2 to the Applicant of Flat No. A-1006 in 'Mantri Serene', situated opposite MHADA Bungalow, off Film City Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 065; (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 1 from taking any coercive steps or action against the Applicant in respect of Flat No. A-1006 in 'Mantri Serene', situated opposite MHADA Bungalow, off Film City Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 065; Areeb 2/5 28-IA-2424-2021 (OS).DOC (d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application. the Office of the Official Liquidator of the High Court of Bombay acting as the Provisional Liquidator, by himself or through his servants, agents, other nominees and/or other representatives be restrained by an order and injunction from taking any coercive steps to recover possession from the Applicant or from interfering in the peaceful use, occupation and possession of the said Flat No. A-707in 'Mantri Serene', situated opposite MHADA Bungalow, off Film City 400 065 in any manner Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai whatsoever.” 2. Heard Mr. Mehta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, who submits following; Submissions on behalf of the Applicant: A. The Applicants purchased the Flat for a total consideration of Rs. 69,66,400/- by way of a registered Agreement for Sale dated 6th March 20141. The Applicants are currently in possession of the said Flat. B. The Applicants have paid the entire consideration for the sale of the said Flat by NEFT/cheque with the final payment made on 9th January 2015. The payments are summarized as follows: SN Date of Payment Mode of Payment Reference No. Amount (INR) 1. 31.12. 2013 NEFT from Account No. 628401075155 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 530184823 2,00,000 2. 25.01.2014 NEFT from Account No. 628401075287 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 45911797 4,00,000 3. 05.02.2014 NEFT from Account No. 628401075287 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 46222384 4,00,000 4. 07.02.2014 NEFT from Account No. 628401075155 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 547548899 4,00,000 5. 03.03.2014 NEFT from Account No. 628401075155 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 557362910 3,78,400 Areeb 3/5 28-IA-2424-2021 (OS).DOC 6. 03.03.2014 NEFT from Account No. 628401075287 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 557352618 66,400 7. 01.04.2014 Loan Cheque drawn on HDFC Bank Cheque No. 467518 44,55,040 8. 20.05.2014 NEFT from Account No. 628401075287 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 592838759 2,52,636 9. 06.09.2014 Loan Cheque drawn on HDFC Bank Cheque No. 551649 6,33,246 10. 07.01.2015 Cheque drawn on HDFC Bank Cheque No. 686414 4,11,714 11. 09.01.2015 NEFT from Account No. 628401075155 (ICICI Bank) Ref No. 705117077 2,87,667 Total Consideration Paid 78,85,103 The Official Liquidator has verified that an amount of Rs. 72,21,777/- (which is more than the consideration of Rs. 69,66,400/-) has been credited in the various bank accounts of the company. C. The Applicants were unaware of the presentation of any winding up petition against the Respondents or any orders passed therein. This is further apparent from the fact that the Applicants were granted a home loan of Rs. 55,00,000/- by HDFC Bank, who had informed the Applicants that the project was a pre-approved project, without any objection. D. The Agreement was executed and the payments were made post the presentation of winding up petitions against the Respondent, but before appointment of the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator. The Official Liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of Respondent No. 2 on 4 th February 2015. E. The Applicants are bonafide purchasers and executed the subject transaction in good faith. This is evident from the following: Areeb 4/5 28-IA-2424-2021 (OS).DOC (i) There is no connection whatsoever between the Applicants and the Respondents and/or their officers. (ii) The transaction was entered into at a rate higher than the ready reckoner rate. (iii) The transaction was entered into through a reputed housing finance company viz. HDFC Bank wherein the Respondents’ project was a ‘pre-approved project’. (iv) The transaction was entered into in the ordinary course of business as the Respondents are in the business of real estate. (v) The transaction has not prejudiced any creditor and has in fact led to generation of greater funds for the Respondents. F. This Hon’ble Court has, in almost identical facts, held that there is no reason why bonafide transactions ought not to be validated. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following orders passed in this very Company Petition in the cases of Shaheen Nehal Siddiqui & Anr. v. The Official Liquidator of Mantri Realty Ltd. & Anr. 1 . and Padam Meghraj Sharma & Anr. v. The Official Liquidator of Mantri Realty Ltd. & Anr. 2 It is therefore submitted that the present Application ought to be allowed. 3. Mr. Sheth learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator 1 Order dated 14th July 2025 in Interim Application No. 2422 of 2021 in Company Petition No. 291 of 2014 2 Order dated 11th August 2025 in Interim Application (L) No. 1992 of 2021 in Company Petition No. 291 of 2014 (erroneously stated as Commercial IP Suit No. 291 of 2014) Areeb 5/5 28-IA-2424-2021 (OS).DOC submits that the Official Liquidator has verified the record and found that the payments made have been duly received by the Company in liquidation and accordingly the Liquidator would have no objection in the facts of this case to execute necessary documents recording the sale of the said flat to the Applicant. He, however, submits that this order ought not to be treated as precedent since there are several other Applications pending before this Court filed by the Ex- Directors of the Company in liquidation as also persons closed or related to them/ entities controlled by them, where similar requests have been made, however, he submits that in those cases, the transactions are colored and not bonafide. 4. Hence it is made clear that this order shall not be treated as precedent and this is passed only in the facts of the present case, where the Official Liquidator has found the transactions to be bonafide. 5. Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] Areeb