Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2406 (BOM)

Jignesh Shah v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd.

2015-10-27

SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, V.M.KANADE

body2015
JUDGMENT : V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are partners of Appellant No.5 Crescent Builders. They have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22/01/2015 passed in Court Receiver's Report No.381 of 2014 in Suit No.1512 of 2009. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to accept the Court Receiver's Report and permitted the Court Receiver to proceed with the sale of 18 unsold flats and pay the sale proceeds thereof in discharge of (a) dues of Defendant No.6 – Corporation, (b) decretal amount of Rs 107 crores payable to the Plaintiff and (c) cost of construction. Secondly, the Municipal Corporation was directed to consider the application dated 03/11/2014 made by M/s Parelkar & Dallas for regularization of areas in the building under construction to bring the same within the sanctioned plan and proceed to regularize the areas, if otherwise permissible in law without insisting upon an upfront prior payment of its share of capitalized value and other consequential reliefs were also granted. 2. Principal contention of the Appellants is that no flat could be sold by the Court Receiver until Occupation Certificate of the building is obtained in terms of Clause 6 of the Consent Terms. 3 Before we deal with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, it would be necessary to briefly state the chequered history of this case. 4. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) is the owner of plot bearing C.S. Nos. 1/725 and 725 (Part), situated at Malabar Hill Division, Mumbai and it was reserved for public housing in the development plan. Society was formed by the occupiers and on 09/07/1996, they submitted proposal through their Architects to MCGM for implementation of the scheme under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (“DCR”). The proposal was approved by the MCGM. However, a condition was imposed that the Society and/or Developer would enter into agreement with the Municipal Commissioner agreeing to pay 10% of the capitalized value before the grant of the Commencement Certificate and balance amount of 90% before final occupation of the sale building. Accordingly, Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) was executed between the Society and Crescent Builders (Appellants) authorizing them to carry out development on the suit property as developer. Accordingly, Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) was executed between the Society and Crescent Builders (Appellants) authorizing them to carry out development on the suit property as developer. Thereafter, on 08/01/1997, MOU was executed between the Appellants and Respondent No.1 in which it was specifically agreed that the Appellants would pay the capitalized value and it would be their sole responsibility to pay it to the MCGM. Thereafter, on 16/07/1998, Tripartite Agreement was executed between MCGM, Society and the Appellants. There was a specific clause in the agreement whereby the Appellants were under an obligation to pay 10% of the capitalized value on or before 1998 alongwith interest and balance 90% on or before grant of Occupation Certificate. 5. Show Cause Notice was issued by MCGM on 17/04/2008, asking the Appellants to show cause as to why 90% of the capitalized value should not be recovered from them alongwith interest on account of failure to complete the scheme. 6. Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 72 of 2009, seeking direction to MCGM to grant additional FSI, which had been made conditional upon they paying remaining 90% of capitalized value due to MCGM with interest. 7. Respondent No.1 – Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd (“SPCL”) filed a suit in this Court on 21/04/2009 against the Appellants and Others for specific performance of various agreements including MOU executed between the Appellants and Respondent No.1. 8. In the meantime, this Court in Writ Petition No.72 of 2009 held that the Appellants were liable to pay balance 90% of the capitalized value on or before 24/04/2008 alongwith interest @ 15% per annum till payment. 9. Thereafter, the Appellants issued termination notice to Respondent No.1 on 12/01/2010. The pending suit was accordingly amended. 10. Appellants filed Special Leave Petition against the Judgment and Order dated 13/08/2009, which was dismissed by the Apex Court and the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court was confirmed. 11. Again, a new Writ Petition was filed by the Appellants on 30/12/2011 vide Writ Petition (L) No.2943 of 2011, challenging the notice issued by MCGM on 07/12/2011 asking the Appellants to pay the capitalized value. 11. Again, a new Writ Petition was filed by the Appellants on 30/12/2011 vide Writ Petition (L) No.2943 of 2011, challenging the notice issued by MCGM on 07/12/2011 asking the Appellants to pay the capitalized value. This Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 27/01/2012 in terms of Minutes of Order in which Appellants were granted a period of six months to make payment to the MCGM of the balance amount of the capitalized value with interest thereon from 01/01/2008 @ 15% per annum till payment. The Court Receiver was appointed of the sale building and in the event of default, Court Receiver was to sell the flats and sale proceeds of all the cumulative amounts due from the Appellants for all projects were to be paid with interest thereon to the MCGM. Appellants again challenged this order by filing a Review Petition dated 28/03/2012. 12. Simultaneously, Notices of Motion were filed by both, the Appellants and Respondent No.1 seeking various directions from the Court. 13. All these Notices of Motion were disposed of by a common order dated 27/06/2013. This Court appointed Court Receiver as Receiver in respect of sale building and empowered him to sell the flats in the sale building to be used towards making payment of the capitalized value alongwith interest @ 15% per annum and the Receiver was to make payment of capitalized value to MCGM within six months of the said order. 14. Again, several appeals were filed against the said order dated 27/06/2013. Appeals were disposed of in terms of Minutes of the Order dated 04/09/2013. The order was also passed in the suit disposing of the said suit in terms of the Minutes of the Order dated 04/09/2013. 15. Again, the Appellants failed to make payment to Respondent No.1 – SPCL in terms of the Minutes of the Order dated 04/09/2013 and they also failed to make payment of capitalized value to MCGM in terms of the said Minutes of the Order. 16. 15. Again, the Appellants failed to make payment to Respondent No.1 – SPCL in terms of the Minutes of the Order dated 04/09/2013 and they also failed to make payment of capitalized value to MCGM in terms of the said Minutes of the Order. 16. On 28/02/2014, MCGM addressed a letter to Respondent No.1's advocate annexing the letter issued by MCGM to the Court Receiver in which it was mentioned as under: “......However as far as the rights of the municipal corporation of greater Mumbai is concerned to recover capitalized value as per the order of Justice Kathawala being judgment dated 27.06.2013 are intact and you the Court Receiver is required to comply with the direction contained in the said order and judgment dated 27.06.2013, more particularly in terms of Para 92(iii) and Para 92(v) thereof....” On 19/08/2014, SPCL was appointed as Agent of the Court Receiver in terms of the Agency Agreement with effect from 17/12/2013 for a period of 36 months. On 01/10/2014, a letter was written by Architect to the Court Receiver mentioning as under:- “......As per directions given from time to time, we have followed the necessary procedure of applications for revalidation of the IOD/CC for the municipal building as well as sale building before MCGM. However the concerned officers are not taking any action to issue the order to us to pay the revalidation fees due to nonpayment of capitalised value.......” Court Receiver therefore filed a Report dated 26/11/2014 seeking directions to sell the 31 unsold flats in the sale building so as to pay the capitalized value due to the MCGM. 17. Court Receiver's Report was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 22/01/2015 permitting the Court Receiver to sell 18 unsold flats in the sale building and to pay sale proceeds thereof for discharge of inter alia the balance capitalized value to MCGM. Being aggrieved by the said order, present appeal has been filed. 18. From the above facts, it can be seen that the Appellants were directed to pay the capitalized value due to Defendant No.6 – Corporation alongwith interest thereon. This Court, by its order dated 13/08/2009 passed in Writ Petition No.72 of 2009 held that the Appellants were liable to pay the balance amount of 90% of the capitalized value on or before 24/04/2008 alongwith interest. This Court, by its order dated 13/08/2009 passed in Writ Petition No.72 of 2009 held that the Appellants were liable to pay the balance amount of 90% of the capitalized value on or before 24/04/2008 alongwith interest. In the main suit, ultimately, the Consent Terms were filed and, in the Consent Terms, decretal amount was crystallized to Rs 107 crores which was to be paid by the Appellants/original Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 within 90 days from the date of the Consent Terms. The manner in which the said amount was to be paid was mentioned in Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Consent Terms and Clause 6 of the Consent Terms referred to consequences of nonpayment of the said amount and the Court Receiver was to be appointed in execution without any further order of the Court. The original Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 was authorized to complete rest of the work of the sale building. Since the entire thrust of the arguments of the Appellants rests on Clause 6 of the Consent Terms, it would be profitable to reproduce the said Clause which reads as under: “6. On any default being committed in terms of Clauses 3, 4 and 5 above: a. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay do stand appointed as Receiver on execution forthwith without any order of Court. b. The Respondent No.1/Orig. Plaintiff do stand appointed as agent of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay and will be entitled to carry out and complete the balance construction work of the sale building within a period of 3 (THREE years) beginning from 4th December, 2013. c. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to obtain occupation certificate of the sale building. d. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to sell only such number of flats so as to recover the decretal amount plus construction cost spent by the Respondent No.1/Orig. Plaintiff for completion of the construction, as determined by the Architect on the Panel of this Hon'ble Court. e. Both the parties at liberty to bring offers to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay for sale of the flats as aforesaid. f. After recovery of the decretal amount as aforesaid, the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay to put the Appellants/Orig. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in possession of the saleable building. e. Both the parties at liberty to bring offers to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay for sale of the flats as aforesaid. f. After recovery of the decretal amount as aforesaid, the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay to put the Appellants/Orig. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in possession of the saleable building. g. Thereafter on payment of charges of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to stand discharged.” 19. Mr. Chinoy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants invited our attention to the Consent Terms which were filed in the Appeal Court and more particularly Clauses 6(a) to 6(d). Much emphasis was laid by the learned Senior Counsel on Clauses 6(b) and (c ). It was submitted that only after the building was constructed by Respondent No.1 and Occupation Certificate was obtained, the Court Receiver could sell the flats. It was contended that the Consent Terms filed in the Appeal Court displaced the Order appealed against dated 27/06/2013 for sale of flats by Court Receiver to pay the Corporation capitalized value, which was liable to be paid by the Appellants. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in permitting the Court Receiver to sell the flats, although construction of the building had not been completed and Occupation Certificate had not been applied for. Secondly, it was submitted that the Consent Terms clearly stated that the flats were to be sold to recover the decretal amount and the construction cost spent by Respondent No.1 on the completion of construction. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the Court Receiver to sell the flats only after construction of the building had been completed. He therefore submitted that the said order was contrary to the express provisions of the Consent Terms. It was submitted that in the oral submissions and in the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the Respondents, it had been contended that payment of capitalized value of Respondent No.3 – Corporation stood on a different footing and was not covered by the express language of Clause 6 of the Consent Terms. It was submitted that in the oral submissions and in the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the Respondents, it had been contended that payment of capitalized value of Respondent No.3 – Corporation stood on a different footing and was not covered by the express language of Clause 6 of the Consent Terms. It was submitted that the appellate order dated 04/09/2013 was clearly in substitution of the order dated 27/06/2013 and direction given in the said order did not survive after the order was passed in terms of the Consent Terms. It was submitted that if the said order was to continue, it was not necessary for the Corporation to submit that the Consent Terms would not come in the way of the Corporation in taking steps to protect its rights in accordance with law. It was submitted that the Court Receiver had sought permission to sell the flats only on the basis of the Consent Terms dated 04/09/2013 and therefore the Respondents could not seek to relate the order and the process of sale of flats by the Court Receiver to the order dated 27/06/2013. 20. On the other hand, Mr. Sathe, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submitted that the contention of the Appellants that the flats could not be sold until Occupation Certificate was obtained was fallacious on the following grounds: (A) It was not in dispute that the capitalized value was to be paid forthwith and that it was a liability of the Appellants. Appellants' contention that the payment of this amount should be differed was not accepted by the Division Bench and by the Apex Court. (B) This Court in Writ Petition (L) No.2943 of 2011 by its order dated 27/01/2012 had appointed a Court Receiver for Saleable Building and the Court Receiver was empowered to sell the flats and to proceed to receive payment of capitalized value due to the Corporation. 21. According to the Respondents, the order passed in Writ Petition (L) No.2943 of 2011 was substituted in appeal as under: “92. Under the circumstances, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, an order protecting the rights of all concerned, including the Defendant No.6 Corporation and the rights of the flat purchasers, need to be passed. For this purpose, the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in Notice of Motion No.443 of 2012 need to be moulded. Under the circumstances, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, an order protecting the rights of all concerned, including the Defendant No.6 Corporation and the rights of the flat purchasers, need to be passed. For this purpose, the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in Notice of Motion No.443 of 2012 need to be moulded. Accordingly, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, I pass the following order in Notice of Motion No.443 of 2012: (i) The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, is appointed as Receiver in respect of the entire saleable building; (ii) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 shall not receive any amounts payable by the Purchasers with respect to their flats in the saleable building (upto the 19th floor) and the same shall be received/recovered by the Court Receiver; (iii) The balance flats in the saleable building shall be sold by the Court Receiver at the prevailing market price. Before any sale of such flats, the Court Receiver will obtain permission of this Court after serving notice on all the parties to the Suit. The sale proceeds of the balance flats shall be retained by the Court Receiver and dealt with/invested as directed hereunder; (iv) Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 shall stop carrying out any work in respect of the saleable building and submit accounts to the Court Receiver within a period of 7 days from the date of this Order. The Plaintiffs will carry out the remaining work in respect of the said building as agents of Court Receiver and the Court Receiver shall obtain the Occupation Certificate in respect thereto. However, the flat purchasers will be allowed to occupy their respective flats only after the Court Receiver applies and obtains permission of this Court to do so. The Plaintiffs shall file quarterly accounts with the Court Receiver. (v) The Court Receiver shall from the amounts received by him start making payments to the Defendant No.6 Corporation towards Capitalised Value of the share of the Corporation in the sale building with interest thereon from 1st January, 2008 at the rate of 15% per annum till payment until the entire amount due is paid. The Receiver shall endeavour to pay this amount within 6 months from the date of this Order. The Receiver shall endeavour to pay this amount within 6 months from the date of this Order. (vi) Save and except the amounts paid to the Corporation as directed in clause (v) above, the Court Receiver shall invest all the amounts deposited/collected by him in fixed deposits of a Nationalised Bank, initially for a period of six months and thereafter, renew it as per directions of this court.” “Notice of Motion No.443 of 2012 is accordingly disposed of.” “98(iii)....... In view of the said order passed in Notice of Motion No.443 of 2012, the order passed in the said Writ Petition (L) No.2943 of 2011 no longer survives and the Review Petition accordingly stands disposed of.” 22. It was contended that therefore the Court Receiver appointed for sale of flats to pay the capitalized value continued and the appointment of the Court Receiver to sell the flats was not affected by the Consent Terms. It was contended that right of the Corporation to recover the capitalized value was kept intact in para 2 of the Order passed by the Appeal Court dated 04/09/2013, which reads as under: “2. Since the dispute has been settled between the Plaintiff and original First to Fifth Defendants, we dispose of the appeals in terms of the consent terms. At the same time we clarify on the request of the counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai that these consent terms will not come in the way of the Municipal corporation in taking steps to protect its rights in accordance with law. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, it is clarified that if a representation is made to the Municipal Corporation for the sanction of the balance F.S.I of 0.5, such a request shall be duly evaluated and considered in accordance with law. However, this will not be considered as a direction of the Court for sanctioning of the FSI. The undertakings contained in the consent terms are accepted.” 23. It was then contended that in the Consent Terms it was clarified that only after the capitalized value was paid, the Court Receiver would stand discharged. It was then submitted that the Corporation was entitled to recover the balance capitalized value and it was not dependent upon completion of sale and or issuance of Occupation Certificate. It was then contended that in the Consent Terms it was clarified that only after the capitalized value was paid, the Court Receiver would stand discharged. It was then submitted that the Corporation was entitled to recover the balance capitalized value and it was not dependent upon completion of sale and or issuance of Occupation Certificate. It was then submitted that any interpretation placed on the Consent Terms, must promote the object thereof and could not lead to absurdity. It was submitted that there was no obligation upon the Respondents to make payment towards capitalized value due to Respondent No.3 under the Consent Terms. 24. Lastly, it was submitted that the Appellants had filed several cases and raised frivolous disputes. It was contended that after the Consent Terms were executed, numerous proceedings had been instituted by the Appellants with an idea to frustrate the Consent Terms. The list of 16 such applications was brought to our notice. 25. After having heard both the parties at length and after having gone through the Consent Terms and other orders passed by this Court from time to time including the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 26. Appellants and Respondent No.1 entered into MOU in the nature of construction contract to carry out construction/redevelopment of the rehab buildings and the free sale building at their cost in the suit property. Respondent No.1 was to receive 55% share in the built up area of the sale building and the Appellants were to retain balance 45% of the built up area in the sale building. This ratio was later on increased to 57% for Respondent No.1 and 43% for the Appellants alongwith additional area of 8287 sq. ft. for Respondent No.1. The Corporation demanded payment of capitalized value on account of failure to complete the project within three years. This Court held that capitalized value payable to the Corporation was to be paid forthwith. The application filed by the Appellants for extension of time for making payment of capitalized value was rejected by the Corporation, High court and also by the Supreme Court. It was further held that liability to pay the capitalized value was on the Appellants. This Court held that capitalized value payable to the Corporation was to be paid forthwith. The application filed by the Appellants for extension of time for making payment of capitalized value was rejected by the Corporation, High court and also by the Supreme Court. It was further held that liability to pay the capitalized value was on the Appellants. In a separate Writ Petition, it was held that the Court Receiver was being appointed for sale of flats for realization of the capitalized value. The Consent Terms were also filed in the suit and decree was passed in terms of the Consent Terms, which provided that the total liability of the Appellants was Rs 107 crores, which was split into two parts viz (a) capitalized value and (b) claim of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff. The capitalized value was to be paid alongwith interest @ 15%. Initially at the time of filing of Consent Terms the decretal amount was Rs 26 crores and with interest the decretal amount which has now become payable is approximately about Rs 35 crores. As per the Consent Terms also, for nonpayment of the decretal amount, the Court Receiver was to be appointed and the flats were to be sold by the Court Receiver for realization of the said amount. It is now sought to be contended on the basis of the Clauses in the Consent Terms that the flats could be sold only after the entire building was constructed. Reliance is placed on sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 6 of f the Consent Terms which read as under:- “a. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay do stand appointed as Receiver on execution forthwith without any order of Court. b. The Respondent No.1/Orig. Plaintiff do stand appointed as agent of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay and will be entitled to carry out and complete the balance construction work of the sale building within a period of 3 (THREE years) beginning from 4th December, 2013. c. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to obtain occupation certificate of the sale building.” 27. In our view, there is no substance in the said submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. c. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to obtain occupation certificate of the sale building.” 27. In our view, there is no substance in the said submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. It has to be noted that the decretal amount is split in two parts; one amount is payable to Respondent No.1/Plaintiff towards decretal amount and the other is payable to the Corporation towards capitalized value. Both these amounts have been mentioned in the Consent Terms. The Consent Terms, however, cannot be read in isolation. They have to be read alongwith other orders which have been passed and which have been confirmed upto the Supreme Court, which, in specific terms, refer to the liability of the Appellants to pay the capitalized value. What is now sought to be done is to construe certain sub-clauses in Clause 6 of the Consent Terms to mean that only after the entire building is constructed, flats could be sold for recovery of the decretal amount. In our view, the said submission is completely fallacious. Firstly, the Court Receiver was already appointed in Writ Petition (L) No.2943 of 2011 with permission to sell the flats for realization of the capitalized value. The Court Receiver in his report has given a chronology of events and has referred to various orders which have been passed from time to time and on that basis has sought permission to sell the flats for recovery of capitalized value. The learned Single Judge, after having noted the objections raised by the Appellants herein, by a reasoned order accepted the Court Receiver's Report. 28. We therefore do not see any infirmity or illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are satisfied that the Appellants are trying to raise frivolous grounds and are trying to defeat execution of the Consent Terms on one pretext or the other. Appellants have, so far, filed the following applications after the Order was passed in terms of the Consent Terms. (i) On 10th October, 2013, this Hon'ble Court took on record the Consent Terms dated 4th September, 2013 and disposed of Suit No.1512 of 2009 with Suit No.2236 of 2013 in terms of the said Consent Terms. (ii) On 4th December, 2013, the Appellant took out Notices of Motion being Nos. 2380, 2381, 2382 and 2383 in the Appeal Nos. (i) On 10th October, 2013, this Hon'ble Court took on record the Consent Terms dated 4th September, 2013 and disposed of Suit No.1512 of 2009 with Suit No.2236 of 2013 in terms of the said Consent Terms. (ii) On 4th December, 2013, the Appellant took out Notices of Motion being Nos. 2380, 2381, 2382 and 2383 in the Appeal Nos. 289 of 2013, 290 of 2013, 291 of 2013 and 292 of 2013 respectively seeking extension to make the payment in terms of Clause 3 of the said Consent Terms. (iii) On 9th December, 2013, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the aforesaid Notices of Motion seeking extension of payment. (iv) On 16th December, 2013, this Respondent filed Judge's Order (L) No.295 of 2013 to take forcible possession of the Suit Premises with police assistance. (v) On 17th December, 2013, the Court Receiver visited the premises when the possession was resisted by the Appellants. However the Court Receiver with the help of police authorities took the forcible possession of the saleable building in the suit premises. (vi) On 23rd December, 2013, one Shreyas J Shah filed a Review Petition (L) No.98 of 2013 against this Respondent & Ors seeking review of the Order dated 10th October, 2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court. (vii) On 10th January, 2014, the aforementioned Review Petition was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. (viii) On 20th January, 2014, this Respondent filed Judge's Order for taking forcible possession of the saleable building and the same was allowed vide this Hon'le Court's Order dated 31st January, 2014 with directions to Court Receiver to take forcible possession of the saleable building. (ix) On 3rd February, 2014, the Appellants filed Notice of Motion (L) No.223 of 2014 in Appeal (L) No.57 of 2014 against Order dated 10th January, 2014 in Review Petition. (x) On 3rd February, 2014, Notice of Motion (L) No.224 of 2014 in Appeal (L) No.58 of 2014 was filed by Jignesh Shah & Ors against Judge's Order dated 31st January, 2014. (xi) On 25th February, 2014, Notice of Motion (L) No.223 of 2014 in Appeal (L) No.57 of 2014 alongwith the Appeal (L) No. 57 of 2014 against Order dated 10th January, 2014 in Review Petition filed by Jignesh Shah & Ors was dismissed as not maintainable by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. (xi) On 25th February, 2014, Notice of Motion (L) No.223 of 2014 in Appeal (L) No.57 of 2014 alongwith the Appeal (L) No. 57 of 2014 against Order dated 10th January, 2014 in Review Petition filed by Jignesh Shah & Ors was dismissed as not maintainable by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. (xii) On 17th July, 2014, Appeal (L) No.58 of 2014 was dismissed for non removal of office objections. (xiii) On 26th August, 2014, Notice of Motion (L) No.224 of 2014 in Appeal (L) No.58 of 2014 was disposed off. (xiv) On 5th September, 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Appellants challenging an interim order dated 5th May, 2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Appeal (L) No.58 of 2014. (xv) On 26th November, 2014, the Court Receiver filed Report No.381 of 2014 inter alia seeking directions to sell the 31 unsold flats in the saleable building. (xvi) Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellants have filed the present Appeal. 29. Appeal is therefore dismissed and the Order passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed. Since the Appeal itself is disposed of, Notice of Motion (L) No.743 of 2015 taken out therein by the Appellants do not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.