The Bombay high court on 18th March dismissed an appeal by Preity Zinta and her mother and directed them to hand over the share certificates of three flats at Union Park, Bandra, Bombay to Ace Housing & Construction Ltd., which had bought them from her in 2016 for Rs. 7 crore.
In a judgement of March 18, a bench of Justices S.J. Kathawalla and Vinay Joshi said, “Zintas cannot take advantage of their wrong and plead the bar of any law to frustrate proceedings before court. Zintas have admitted receipt of entire sale consideration and they stand by the sale transaction. They (Zintas) also signed share transfer forms in favour of Ace. The certificates must be handed over to Ace.”
Preity had challenged the order dated January 28 of a judge in a suit filed by Ace for transfer of the share certificates of the flats, in custody of HC prothonotary. Ace also sought recovery of over Rs. 1 crore 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 Zintas had mortgaged the flats earlier to a bank, and Ace said, the sale amount was to be used to close the loan account and hand over a ‘no dues letter’ so that it would have a clear title. Last year, Ace approached the high court, apprehending that the bank might take steps against the flats in case of default, and Preity filed an affidavit saying that the ‘no dues letter’ was received in May 2018 and the loan was closed. Hence new owner Ace sought the original title documents from Preity who opposed it. The HC in November 2020 directed that the certificates be deposited with the prothonotary.
Preity told the court that the original papers could not be given when the dispute (which was time-barred) was pending. Ace said, the claim for Rs. 90 lakh had no link with the transfer deed and it was an interest-free deposit paid by it on behalf of Preity to her licensee. According to the HC, Ace had bifurcated its claim. The Rs. 90 lakh paid as interest-free security deposit was unconnected and not interlinked to the sale consideration paid by Ace to the actress. Preity Zinta’s argument that Ace was seeking refund of sale consideration “must fail”, said the court.
The HC remarked, “Even today, Zintas have per se not opposed transfer of shares. Zintas have no claims against Ace… Zintas cannot indirectly retain charge of flats they have sold to Ace under validly executed and registered deeds of transfer, under which Zintas received entire sale consideration.” The court said that her arguments of the suit against her being barred by law of limitation did not appeal to it. The HC told Preity that she could raise written arguments of her grievance against Ace’s claim when its suit was heard.