Bombay High Court
SICOM LIMITED THROUGH RAJENDRA S. BHOSALEversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATAOR OF AAP MINERVA BUILTCON LTD AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the magistrate's order was erroneous for separating the properties and allowed the interim application to correct the order as sought.
Summary
Sicom Ltd, the petitioner, filed an interim application seeking correction of a learned Magistrate's order that had considered the land and building of the subject property separately. The petitioner argued that both the land and the building should have been taken together for cognizance. The High Court examined the material and found a clear fallacy in the magistrate's order for not considering both properties jointly. Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application to the extent of prayer clauses (a) and (b), directing that the magistrate's order be read in conjunction with the corrected order. The Court left the remaining prayers to be pursued by the parties through appropriate remedies. The order was issued by Justice Milind N. Jadhav on 29 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the learned Magistrate erred by not considering both the land and the building together in the order.
- Whether the interim application for correction of the magistrate's order should be allowed.
Subjects
- interim application
- correction of order
- property
- magistrate order
- writ petition
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
28. CRI IA-2428-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2428 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 14 OF 2023
Sicom Ltd Applicant
.. (Org. Petitioner)
Versus
Official Liquidator of AAP Minerva Builtcon Ltd
& Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Anuj Desai a/w Ms. Arundhati Korale & Mr. Paras Gupta i/by
Jurisperitus Mumbai, Advocates for Applicant
Mr. Apurva Thipsay, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh a/w Ms. Nikita Vardhan, Ms. Vidyashree
Perla & Ms. Stuti Menon i/by Kanga & Company, Advocates for
Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 12 and 16
Mr. Aditya Nair a/w Ms. Anushka Bhatt i/by Khaitan Legal
Associates, Advocates for Respondent No. 13
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Thipsay,
learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1; Mr. Deshmukh, learned
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 12 & 16; Mr. Nair, learned
Advocate for Respondent No. 13 and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for State.
2. Pursuant to the order passed on 18.09.2026, today learned
Advocates for Respondent No. 1, Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 12 & 16,
Respondent No. 13 and learned APP for State are present.
1 of 3
28. CRI IA-2428-26.odt
3. Mr. Deshmukh in his usual fair-mindedness informs the Court
that the case made out by the Applicant to the extent of the correction
and as opined by this Court in order dated 18.09.2026 be corrected in
accordance with law. The conduct of Mr. Deshmukh is appreciated by
the Court.
4. I have perused the material which is placed before the Court. I
have also given my prima facie opinion while passing the order dated
18.09.2026. There is a clear and distinct fallacy in the order passed by
the learned Magistrate by not considering both the properties. The
grounds which are mentioned in the present Application are to that
effect and I therefore would be inclined to correct the said order
because by taking cognizance, both the land and the building ought to
have been considered together rather than separating both the
properties. In that view of the matter, Mr. Desai has made out
arguable case for allowing the present Application. Hence, the
Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
5. However with regard to the other prayers, the parties are free to
avail whatever remedy that may be available to the parties including
that for the private Respondents with regard to their nexus with the
subject property on the basis of their respective documentation.
2 of 3
28. CRI IA-2428-26.odt
6. This order shall be read along with the Magistrate's order for the
purpose of implementation.
7. Parties to act on a server copy of this order downloaded from
the website of Bombay High Court.
8. Interim Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.30
14:47:29 +0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.