Bombay HC dismisses plea of actor, mom on three Bandra flats

MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by actor Preity Zinta (45) and her mother, Neelprabha, and directed her to hand over share certificates of three flats at Union Park, Bandra (W), to Ace Housing and Construction Ltd, which had bought it from her for Rs 7 crore in 2016.
“Zintas cannot take advantage of their own wrong and plead the bar of any law to frustrate proceedings before court,” said a bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Vinay Joshi in its March 18 judgment.The judges said, “Zintas have admitted receipt of entire sale consideration and they stand by the sale transaction.’’ Following a 2016 deed of transfer, the judges said, “Zintas have also signed share transfer forms in favour of Ace Housing. The certificates must be handed over to Ace Housing.’’
The actor had challenged an interim January 28 order by a judge in a suit filed by Ace for transfer of flats’ share certificates, in custody of HC prothonotary (senior-most officer on administrative side). The company also sought recovery of over Rs 1 crore it paid for Rs 90 lakh it claimed to have paid on her behalf towards refund of a security deposit to her 2015 licensee in the flat.
The judge had directed the HC officer to hand over original certificates to Ace and directed the housing society too, to transfer shares to Ace.
Zintas had mortgaged the flats earlier with a bank and Ace said the sale amount was to be used to close the loan and hand over a no-dues letter so it would have a clear title.
Last year, the construction firm approached HC, apprehending that the bank may take steps against the flat in case of default and Zinta filed an affidavit saying he “no-dues letter” was received in May 2018 and the loan was closed. Hence the new owner, the company, sought the original title documents from the actor. Zinta opposed the plea and HC had last November directed the certificates be deposited with the HC prothonotary.
Her counsel said original flat papers could not be given when the dispute (time-barred) was pending. Ace’s counsel said the claim for Rs 90 lakh has no ink with the transfer deed and was ‘interest free deposit’ paid by it on behalf of the actor to her licensee, residing at the time.
HC also noted, “Ace has bifurcated its claim.’’ HC said it was clear that Rs.90,00,000 in regard to interest free security deposit was unconnected and not interlinked to sale consideration paid by Ace to Zintas. The actor’s argument that Ace was seeking refund of sale consideration “must fail’’ said HC.
HC said, “Even today, Zintas have per se not opposed transfer of shares. Moreover, Zintas have no claims against Ace… Zintas cannot indirectly retain charge of the flats, which they have admittedly sold to Ace under validly executed and registered deeds of transfer, under which Zintas received entire sale consideration.’’ Her arguments of the suit against her being barred by limitation did not appeal to HC.
HC said Zinta can raise written arguments of her grievance against Ace’s claim when its suit is heard.