((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1032 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.457 OF 1997 Prakash M. Pai Applicant versus M/s.Lachhmidhar Kanshiram, Sole Prop.Concern and another Respondents Dr.G.R.Sharma a/w K.K.Mohan i/by Pankan Jain for applicant. C.J.Joy a/w Anamika Malhotra i/by S.K.Mohapatra for respondent no.3 (CBI). Umesh Shetty for respondents 12 and 13. Rushabh Shah for Official Liquidator. Shekhar Shette i/by Ashish Master for respondents 6 to 9. Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Counsel a/w Vijay Thorat, Sr.Counsel a/w Sanjay Jain i/by L.D.Shah & Co. for respondent no.8. R.S.Kavle for respondent no.14. Rushabh Shah, Deepak Thakkar, Kalpesh Parekh i/by Pragna Thakkar for respondent no.10. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 28th February 2008 PC : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant rules. I am in agreement with the stand ((-2-)) MST taken by the respondents that the present application is frivolous and vexatious proceedings taken out by the applicant. From the material on record it is obvious that the sale in respect of Plot No.F-3-1 was specifically assailed by the applicant by taking out an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. That application was rejected on 13th February 2006. Against the said decision the applicant preferred an appeal which, however, was disposed off in terms of the arrangement agreed upon between the applicant and opposite parties to the said proceedings and in particular an undertaking given by the applicant that in future he will not question the genuineness and validity of the sale of the subject plot. That undertaking is found at page 20 of the paper book. In spite of the said undertaking the applicant has approached this Court making same or similar grievances and additionally allegation of fraud which was not raised by the applicant in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 2. The grievance of the applicant that the Official Liquidator has not discharged his obligation or duties effectively, does not commend to me. The proceedings before the Debts ((-3-)) MST Recovery Tribunal were hotly contested between the parties in which an order came to be passed to sell both the plots which were mortgaged to IFCI as first charge. It is IFCI who has resorted to the proceedings for recovery of their dues before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. As aforesaid, the applicant having given solemn assurance before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that it will not take any exception to the sale ordered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the subject plot, cannot be permitted to make grievance brought before this Court by way of present application. 3. I am more than convinced that the present application is not only frivolous but also vexatious proceedings. The applicant, if so advised, may pursue the remedy in respect of the order passed in the appeal, on the basis of consent terms filed before the appellate authority, in which the applicant gave undertaking on 5th October 2006. The said proceedings obviously will be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the order passed in the present application. Application disposed off accordingly. ((-4-)) MST (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)