LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-17

KAMLESH MEHTA Vs. MIRAGE CERAMICS PVT LTD

Decided On December 05, 2019
KAMLESH MEHTA Appellant
V/S
Mirage Ceramics Pvt Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order dated 11th November 2019, the Court Receiver called on various authorities as mentioned in that order to send in their claims against the 1st respondent.

(2.) Mr Ghosalkar for the Abhyudaya Bank, which is a secured creditor has a separate statement estimating that bank's claim at Rs. 23,69,34,034/-. That statement is taken on record and marked "X1" for identifcation with today's date. There is a separate signed statement from the Court Receiver which gives the amounts claimed by various other authorities including income tax, workers' dues, compensation, GST, Mahavitaran at Baramati and the Employees Provident Fund organisation. In this tabulation, which I am retaining on record as "X2" for identifcation with today's date, the Court Receiver has taken an approximate value of Rs. 22 crores as Abhyudaya Bank's claim. With that lower amount, the total computation by the Court Receiver of the amounts claimed by the bank against the 1st respondent is Rs. 49,73,70,462/-. If the present claim by the Abhyudaya Bank (statement "X1") is computed then the claim will go up to nearly Rs. 51 crores or possibly more.

(3.) This puts the petitioner, Kamlesh Mehta, in a difcult position because he had made then a successful bid of Rs. 40.50 5th December 2019 crores for the property seeking to set of his decretal claim against the bid. There is, as Mr Ardeshir points out, with these fgures nothing to set of. He submits that his bid may be allowed to be withdrawn because even if that bid is accepted and he makes payment, there is no possibility of him acquiring title to the property. The diference is not insignifcant -- it is almost Rs. 10 or Rs. 11 crores. I believe Mr Ardeshir is right and the petitioner, since he already holds a decree obtained in a section 9 petition, cannot possibly be expected to throw good money after bad. After all he is a creditor, though with a second charge, and cannot be expected to pour more money with no prospect of receiving an asset in return.