905-wp-2701-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2701 OF 2026 Jahangir Ismail Shaikh .. Petitioner V/S. Asset Reconstruction Company ( India) Limited .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 20662 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2701 OF 2026 Imaan Foundation through its trustee Ali Akbar Ratansey .. Applicant/Petitioner V/S. Asset Reconstruction Company ( India) Limited .. Respondents ------------------- Mr. Yogesh K. Deshpande with Pranav P. Rane i/by YKD and Associates, for the petitioner. Mr. Umal Azam, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Jamshed Ansari, for respondent No.3. -------------------- CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 10TH JULY 2026. PC: 1. In this petition on 19/06/2026, this court had passed the following order. "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned varsha 1 of 7 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2026.07.10 18:31:57 +0530 905-wp-2701-2026.doc counsel appearing for contesting respondent No. 3-Society. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which the miscellaneous application for direction filed on his behalf was disposed of by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT) by the impugned order dated 21/04/2026. 3. At first blush, it appears that the DRAT granted relief to the petitioner by disposing of the said application with a direction to respondent No. 3-Society to deposit the amount of Rs. 4,94,106/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order dated 19/05/2011 with the Registry of the DRAT. 4. But, upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the documents filed along with Writ Petition, particularly the pleadings in Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, we find that the DRAT misdirected itself by proceeding on the basis that the aforesaid amount constituted the entire corpus fund, which was to be deposited by respondent No.3-Society with the DRAT in terms of the order dated 19/05/2011. 5. The documents on record clearly show that the said amount pertained to the first installment of the corpus fund. With passage of time, the development project has been completed and the petitioner has also received possession of the flats, but the controversy is still at large before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the form of an original application filed by the respondent No.1. 6. We find that the order dated 19/05/2011, in no uncertain terms, directed that respondent No. 3-Society shall deposit the share of the petitioner in the corpus fund with the Registry of the DRAT. The respondent No.3-Society is not justified in claiming that the said direction pertained only to the first installment of the corpus fund. 7. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the said direction pertained to the entire corpus fund. 8. The terms of the development agreement placed on varsha 2 of 7 905-wp-2701-2026.doc record show that the corpus fund was to be deposited by the developer in installments depending on the stage of the development. It is not disputed that the developer indeed deposited such amounts, and we are of the opinion that the moment the developer deposited such installments towards the corpus fund with respondent No.3-society, as per the order dated 19/05/2011, it was incumbent upon respondent No.3-Society to have deposited such amounts with the DRAT. 9. The petitioner claims that the entire amount towards the corpus fund i.e. Rs.24,80,536/- should be deposited with interest by respondent No.3-Society in the DRAT. While we are in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the entire corpus fund is required to be deposited, while considering the question of interest payable on the amount, we are of the opinion that a direction with regard to the same can be issued only when details of the dates when the installments of the corpus fund were deposited by the developer with the respondent No. 3-Society are placed before this Court. 10. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition, but a specific direction with regard to the interest component and from the dates from which the interest would accrue can be issued only after the aforesaid details are placed before this Court. 11. In view of the above, respondent No.3- Society is directed to file an additional affidavit, giving details of the dates on which the developer deposited the installments towards corpus fund as per the development agreement so that the Writ Petition can be appropriately disposed of. 12. The additional affidavit be filed within one week from today. 13. List this petition for further consideration on 3rd July 2026 in the supplementary list. 14. At this stage, we find that respondent No.3-Society has already filed its reply affidavit. Other respondents are permitted to file their reply affidavits before the next date of listing." varsha 3 of 7 905-wp-2701-2026.doc 2. Subsequently, on 03/07/2026, the following order was passed: . In the light of the order dated 19th June 2026, the respondent No.3-Society has filed an additional affidavit, giving details in paragraph 3 about the dates on which the five installments towards corpus fund were due and payable under the Development Agreement dated 30th July 2010. In the table at paragraph 3, as regards first installment, there is a typographical error and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Society submits that the date 1st July 2025 may be read as 1st July 2015 2. The petitioner does not dispute the details given in paragraph 3 and the table contained therein. 3. The quantum of the installment pertaining to both the flats i.e. Flat No.001 and Flat No.203, coming to Rs.4,94,106/- is not disputed. Therefore, in the light of the observations made in the order dated 19th June 2026, the respondent No.3-Society will now have to deposit the installments with 6% interest from the dates on which the respective installments were due. In order to obviate any further dispute between the parties, liberty is granted to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3-Society to sit together and calculate the amounts in terms of the observations made hereinabove, so that a specific direction can be passed for the respondent No.3-Society to deposit amounts pertaining to all the five installments before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), within a specific period of time. 4. List for further consideration/disposal on 10th July 2026, to be included in the supplementary list. 3. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has presented a simple interest calculation sheet in terms of the directions varsha 4 of 7 905-wp-2701-2026.doc contained in Paragraph 3 of the above-quoted order dated 03/07/2026. 4. While learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the numbers that are calculated in the said sheet, he submits that if the true purport of the order dated 19/05/2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT) is taken into consideration and if respondent No3 - society had indeed deposited the installments pertaining to the corpus fund at the relevant time, the amount would have been invested in fixed deposit and renewed every 13 months. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said aspect also needs to be taken into consideration and accordingly a calculation carried out by the petitioner needs to be accepted, which would result in a further amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-. 5. We are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it shall be appropriate to record substantial compliance on the part of respondent No.3 with regard to the direction contained in Paragraph 3 of the order of this Court in the present petition dated 03/07/2026, if the calculation sheet submitted on behalf of respondent No.3-society is accepted. 6. In the light of our observations made in the order dated 19/06/2026, we find that the DRAT erred in directing in the impugned order dated 21/04/2026 that respondent No.3- society will deposit only an amount of Rs.4,90,106/-along with interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from order dated 19/05/2011. 7. To that extent, the impugned order is modified to hold that varsha 5 of 7 905-wp-2701-2026.doc respondent No. 3-society is liable to deposit the amount towards the installments as indicated in the order dated 19/06/2026 passed in this writ petition along with 6% interest. The amounts when calculated in terms of the said opinion of this Court, are as follows: Simple Interest Calculation Sheet Installment Number Amount (Rs.) Date From Up to Number of Days Total (Rs.) 1st Installment 4,96,106.00 01/07/2015 10/07/2026 4028 3,28,490.13 2nd Installment 4,96,106.00 02/10/2017 10/07/2026 3204 2,61,291.55 3rd Installment 4,96,106.00 06/12/2019 10/07/2026 2409 1,96,457.98 4th Installment 4,96,106.00 10/10/2021 10/07/2026 1735 1,41,492.15 5th Installment 2,48,669.00 03/12/2023 10/07/2026 951 38,874.12 6th Installment 2,47,437.00 15/10/2024 10/07/2026 634 25,787.68 Total 24,80,530.00 9,92,393.61 Rate of Interest (% p.a.) - 6.00% Days in Year (basis) - 365 Total Amount Payable (Principal + Interest) 34,72,923.61 Formulas used: Number of Days = (Up-To Date - Date From) + 1 [both days inclusive] Total Interest = Amount x Rate x Days / (100 x Days-in-Year) Rate and Days-in-Year are linked to cells I3 and I4 - change them to recompute the whole sheet. varsha 6 of 7 905-wp-2701-2026.doc 8. In view of the above, we direct that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 34,72,923.61/- shall be deposited by respondent No.3-society with the DRAT, Mumbai, within four weeks from today. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) varsha 7 of 7