KUBER PLANTERS LTD., THROUGH ROWENA P SHARMA AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                               19-WP-4722-2026.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          WRIT PETITION NO.4722 OF 2026
         Digitally
         signed by

ARJUN
         ARJUN
         VITTHAL
                      M/s. Kuber Planters Ltd.                                ...Petitioners
VITTHAL  KUDHEKAR
KUDHEKAR Date:        Through its Director
         2026.09.30
         23:11:56
         +0530
                      Rowena P. Sharma & Anr.
                              Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                         ...Respondents
                                                     ——————

                      Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate a/w Akhilesh Dubey, Amit Dubey,
                      Uttam Dubey, Abhishek Karnik, Shubham Sharma & Sahil Upadhyay i/b
                      Law Counsellors, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                      Mr. Subodh Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Rahul Sinha, Soham Bhalerao,
                      Arnav Ashtikar i/b DSK Legal, for Respondent No.3-CIDCO.
                      Mr. Sunil Kumar (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Siddharth Singh i/b
                      Kumar & Associates, for Respondent No.4.
                                                     ——————

                                                              Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                              Date: 30 September 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      Heard Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

                      Petitioners, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent

                      No.3-CIDCO and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for

                      Respondent No.4.

                      2.      By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners are seeking the following

                      substantive reliefs:



                      Arjun                               1
                                                           19-WP-4722-2026.doc


     “(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records
          and proceedings of Application No. 200 of 2024 in M.P.I.D.
          Special Case No. 7 of 2000 pending before the learned
          Designated Court under the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999 at Greater
          Bombay, and, upon examining the legality and propriety
          thereof, be pleased by an appropriate writ, order or
          direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
          quash and set aside the proceedings held on 11th
          September 2026 whereby the said Application No. 200 of
          2024 was heard and reserved for orders on 19th September
          2026;
     (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased by an appropriate writ,
         order or direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
         India to declare that the learned Designated Court, having
         finally determined the question of release of the said
         Properties by its orders dated 26th November 2024 passed
         in Misc. Application No. 333 of 2015 and dated 7th
         December 2024 passed in Misc. Application Nos. 334 and
         429 of 2015, has become functus officio in respect of that
         subject matter, and has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear or
         decide Application No. 200 of 2024 or any other application
         seeking the release or transfer of the said Properties;”


3.      At the outset, Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioners, states that in prayer clauses (a) and (b), M.A. No.1200 of

2024 has been incorrectly mentioned as M.A. No.200 of 2024.

4.      However, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No.4, points out that the said MPID Miscellaneous

Application No.1200 of 2024 has been disposed of by the Order dated

19th September 2026 passed by the learned Designated Judge under

the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999.

5.      The learned Senior Counsel states that the said Order has been

challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No.833 of 2026 under Section 11 of


Arjun                                 2
                                                         19-WP-4722-2026.doc


the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial

Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”). However, he states that the

question as to whether appeals under Section 11 of the MPID Act are to

be heard by a Division Bench or by a Single Judge has been referred to a

Larger Bench.

6.      Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and

Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.3-CIDCO, state

that the properties having valuation of more than about Rs.600 Crores

have been sold in favour of Respondent No.4 for a consideration of

Rs.59,25,00,000/-.

7.      However, as the Appeal has been filed under Section 11 of the

MPID Act, this Court need not consider prayer clauses (a) and (b). Since

the Appeal has been filed and as the said Miscellaneous Application

No.1200 of 2024 has already been disposed of, it is not necessary to

consider various contentions which are raised in the Writ Petition.

However, it is clarified that all contentions raised in the Petition are

expressly kept open.

8.      Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

9.      However, it is directed that, for the purpose of giving opportunity

to the Petitioners for moving the appropriate Court in the said Criminal

Appeal No.833 of 2026, the status quo shall be maintained till 15th

October 2026. The Order of status quo is granted only to facilitate the


Arjun                                3
                                                      19-WP-4722-2026.doc


Petitioners to approach the concerned learned Appellate Court and all

contentions of both the parties are expressly kept open.


                                               [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                             4