[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATIONNO. 49 OF 2009 IN LETTERS OPATENT APPEAL NO. 18 OF 200 IN WRIT PETITON NO. 3965 OF 2005 Haji Abdulrajjak Yasin Patel ... Appellant. Vs. Bara Imam Masjid Trust, and Ors. ... Respondents. And. Rakhi Properties & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicants. Ms. Cyrus Ardesir with Ms. Nina Kapadia i/b. Pandya Gandhi & Co. for Applicants. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : J.N.Patel & A.A.Sayed, JJ. J.N.Patel & A.A.Sayed, JJ. J.N.Patel & A.A.Sayed, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : February 13, 2009. : February 13, 2009. : February 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.1-Trust, though served. 2. This Civil Application has been taken out by the Applicants-Rakhi Properties & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., in the above disposed of LPA, for the following reliefs:- a) That without prejudice to the rights and [ 2 ] contentions including the right to bid at any future auction sale of the subject property the applicants be permitted to withdraw the said sum of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighty Lakhs only) together with interest accrued due thereon and the Registrar of this Hon’ble Court be directed to pay the same to the Applicants. b) That Respondent No.1 Trust be ordered and directed to forthwith refund to the applicants the said sum of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- (Rupees Tree Crores Twenty Lakhas only) together with interest thereon at such rate as this Hon’Ble Court may deem fit and proper. 3. Respondent No.1-Trust owns certain properties situate at Savedi, Ahmednagar being the subject matter of the above LPA for which sanction for sale was sought by the Respondent No.1-Trust from the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Applicants are the nominees of one Shri Rajendra Madanlal Munot, who is respondent No.9 in the LPA. One Rajvi Buildwell Pvt.Ltd was the highest bidder, in response to the [ 3 ] invitation of bids by private circulation for disposal of the said Trust properties. Pursuant to the orders of the Jt. Charity Commissioner fresh tenders were invited by issuing advertisements in news papers and the offer of Rs. 5 crore of Rajvi Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. was again the highest eligible bid. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, however, by his order, dated 19.4.2005 rejected the prayer for sale of the Trust properties. 4. That order was challenged by the respondent No.1-Trust as well as Rajvi Buildwell Pvt.Ltd by filing separate Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge of this Court in his common order permitted the sale of the Trust properties and accepted the enhanced bid of one Shri Rajendra Munot for Rs. 20 crores, instead of the earlier bid of Rs. 5 crores, which bid came to be offered in open Court. Shri Rajendra Munot was directed by order dated 21.12.2005 in the Writ Petition No. 3965 of 2005 to initially deposit a sum of Rs. 4.80 crores in this Court. Accordingly the said amount came to be deposited by the Applicants, being nominees of Shri Rajendra Munot. It is this amount of Rs. 4.80 crores of which refund is sought by the Applicants in the above Civil Application alongwith the accrued [ 4 ] interest. 5. The order of the Single Judge granting permission to Shri Rajendra Munot to purchase the Trust properties for Rs. 20 crores was challenged by one of the beneficiaries of the Respondent No.1-Trust, by filing the above LPA. The LPA was heard by us ( J.N.Patel & A.A.Sayed, JJ) and by our order dated 26th July, 2007, we have set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the Jt. Charity Commissioner. Consequently the sale of the Trust Properties in favour of Rajendra Munot also stood cancelled and the amount of Rs. 4.80 crores as deposited by the Applicants on behalf of Shri Rajendra Munot has remained in this Court. 6. It cannot be disputed that the said amount of Rs. 4.80 crores has been deposited by the Applicants for and on behalf of Shri Rajendra Munot towards part payment for the purchase of the Trust properties, in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court and that the sale of the property ultimately did not materialise in view of the order of the learned Single Judge having been set aside by the order passed in the above LPA. [ 5 ] 7. In view thereof, we see no impediment in ordering refund of the said amount of Rs. 4.80 crores to the Applicants. It is accordingly ordered that the amount of Rs. 4.80 crores alongwith accrued interest thereon, deposited in this Court by the Applicants be allowed to be withdrawn by the Applicants, subject to the condition mentioned in paragraph 9 hereinbelow. 8. In so far as the amount of Rs. 3.20 crores mentioned in prayer (b) of the Civil Application is concerned, the said amount was paid by the Applicants to the Respondent No.1-Trust also towards part consideration of purchase of the Trust properties. As stated in the Civil Application, the said amount was paid directly by the Applicants to the Respondent No.1- Trust in pursuance of the Order dated 21.12.2005 in the Writ Petition No. 3965 of 2005. The Respondent No. 1-Trust has admitted to have received the said amount and the Respondent No.1-Trust has invested the same in a Term Deposit with Bank of Maharashtrata as is recorded in our order dated 26.7.2007. The said amount with the accrued interest would therefore be required to be refunded by the Respondent No. 1-Trust to the Applicants, since the purchase of the Trust properties [ 6 ] has not fructified in view of the order of the Single Judge having been set aside by our order in the LPA. Pertinently, no affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Respondent No.1-Trust controverting the facts stated in the Civil Application. In view thereof, we direct the Respondent No.1-Trust to refund the said amount of Rs. 3.20 crores which they have deposited in Term Deposit with Bank of Maharashtra alongwith the accrued interest which it might have so earned on the said sum to the Applicants on demand by them, subject to the condition mentioned in paragraph 9 hereinbelow. 9. The aforesaid amounts to be paid only after an affidavit is filed in this Court by Shri Rejendra Munot, who is respondent No. 9 in the LPA and Respondent No. 11 in the present Civil Application, that he has no objection if the aforesaid amounts are paid to the Applicants. 10. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, the Civil Application stands disposed of. [J.N.Patel, J.] [A.A.Sayed, J.]