Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.4. He would submit that Defendant No.1's eviction proceedings against Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck came to decided in favour of Defendant No.1 by the Trial Court. He would submit that further 1 Appeal No.271 of 2012 decided on 20th March 2013 2 (2008) 6 SCC 745 IA.7408.2025+IA(L).2426.2026.doc rounds of litigation ensued which culminated in Defendant No.1 filing Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2016 before this Court in which Plaintiff has filed Intervention Application. He would submit that there was change in Plaintiff's shareholding due to which Defendant No.1 has alleged collusion between Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and Plaintiff to cause harm and detriment to Defendant No.1. He would submit that Defendant No.1 has falsely alleged collusion between Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and Plaintiff to deprive the benefit of the eviction Suit to Defendant No.1. He would submit that on execution of Deed of Assignment, Defendant No.1 assigned benefits and burdens of the suit property to Plaintiff and one such burden being the ongoing eviction suit proceedings between Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and Defendant No.1. He would submit that as the entirety of the suit property was sold and assigned to Plaintiff along with all benefits and encumbrances arising therefrom, Defendant No.1 has no surviving right or interest left in the eviction suit proceedings. 3.5. He would submit that the suit property was assigned and transferred to Plaintiff - Company. He would submit that shareholders of Plaintiff - Company owe no obligation to Defendant No.1 and it is free to sell and transfer its shares to any person of its choice. He would submit that since shareholders of Plaintiff - Company sold their shares to a company owned / controlled by Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and his family, it does not give rise to any cause of action to Defendant IA.7408.2025+IA(L).2426.2026.doc No.1 to terminate the Deed of Assignment nor can any question be raised to Plaintiff's title over the suit property without following the due process of law.

4.2. He would submit that if prayer clause (A) of Plaintiff's Interim Application is granted, the rights of MCGM would be adversely affected hence the present Suit is equally bad for misjoinder of parties. 4.3. He would submit that Plaintiff - Company was owned and controlled by one Bharat Patel and his family and on behalf of Plaintiff he had executed and registered the Deed of Assignment dated 20.11.2012. He would submit that Defendant No.1 executed Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 20.11.2012 giving power to Bharat Patel and his son Hardik Patel to develop the suit property. He IA.7408.2025+IA(L).2426.2026.doc would submit that Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company and it has used its corporate veil to encourage illegal acts of Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and his family, who are impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to Interim Application(L) No.2426 of 2026. He would submit that the said Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck has orchestrated the takeover of Plaintiff Company who was to develop the suit property. He would submit that Defendants through their Advocates have time and time again called upon Plaintiff to disclose names and addresses of its shareholders however no response was received and these details are suppressed. He would urge this Court to lift the corporate veil of Plaintiff to disclose the true identities of its shareholders. 4.4. He would submit that the real transaction between the parties was essentially for redevelopment under the Deed of Assignment which cannot be undertaken unless prior permission and payment of premium to Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is obtained. He would submit that though Deed of Assignment was executed, name of Defendant No.1 still is reflected in the revenue record of suit property as well as in municipal records. He would submit that Plaintiff has played fraud upon Defendant No.1 by agreeing to redevelop the suit property and after execution of Deed of Assignment failed to carry out his obligation. He would submit that Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and his family members took control of Plaintiff Company with malafide intention which resulted in Defendant IA.7408.2025+IA(L).2426.2026.doc No.1 losing confidence in the Plaintiff to redevelop the suit property, hence Defendant No.1 terminated the Deed of Assignment and Irrevocable Power of Attorney by issuing Public Notices and Notice addressed to Plaintiff. He would submit that Plaintiff had agreed to hand over area of 7,750 square feet valued at Rs.75,000 per square foot to Defendant No.1 as per Supplemental Agreement, but since redevelopment was stalled, Defendant No.1 suffered loss of more than Rs.310 crores. He would submit that the Deed of Assignment was never meant to convey ownership of the suit property and if that was the case then there was no need to execute the Irrevocable Power of Attorney to Bharat Patel and Hardik Patel, the erstwhile shareholders of Plaintiff Company. He would urge the Court to invoke the Doctrine of Lifting the Corporate Veil of Plaintiff Company on the ground that fraud was played on Defendant No.1 by Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and his family. He would submit that Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck - one of the tenant in the building and his family members surreptitiously took over Plaintiff Company's shareholding with malafide intention to stall redevelopment of the suit property to the prejudice of the Defendants.

4.7. He would submit that the said Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck was originally a tenant of Flat No.9 in the suit property against whom Defendant No. 1 was pursuing eviction suit proceedings in the Small Causes Court since 1993. He would submit that Defendant No.1 came to know of the said Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck and his family's takeover of Plaintiff Company and therefore he decided to terminate the Deed of Assignment and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney since not only the said tenant was opposing redevelopment but also that the Deed of Assignment was executed in violation of Section 92(dddd) of the MMC Act which Plaintiff agreed in the Deed of Assignment to abide by. He would submit that Plaintiff was obligated to pay all dues, charges, other payments and outgoings including the premium to MCGM under Section 92(dddd) of MMC Act. He would submit that Deed of Assignment did not transfer title of suit property to Plaintiff. He would submit that since written permission of MCGM i.e. the head lessor was not obtained, the Deed of Assignment is liable for termination even though it may be a registered document. 4.8. He would submit that in the Suit plaint, Plaintiff did not pray for refund of Rs.12,00,00,000/- consideration and neither has claimed any relief against MCGM. He would submit that MCGM record still IA.7408.2025+IA(L).2426.2026.doc reflects Defendant No.1 as its lessee as he has been paying the lease fees to MCGM since 2009. He would submit that the present declaratory suit filed by Plaintiff is barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as Plaintiff has not claimed any relief to restrain Defendant No.1 from creating third party rights in the suit property hence Defendant No.1 is free to deal with the suit property even if all reliefs prayed for are granted since the Suit is filed for termination of Deed of Assignment which is executed in breach of law and is therefore void.

15. The fourth factual ground taken by Defendant No.1 for issuing the Termination Letter is that Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck has fraudulently and secretly acquired control of Plaintiff - Company. In IA.7408.2025+IA(L).2426.2026.doc this regard, it is seen that the transaction regarding sale of shares by Plaintiff and its shareholders to Darius Rutton Kavasmanek and his family members is a completely different and separate cause of action which is totally irrelevant to the present dispute and cannot constitute as a ground for terminating the Deed of Assignment. The Deed of Assignment executed between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 is a distinct and separate entity and cause of action altogether.