Mumbai: Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal 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 & Construction Ltd, which had bought them from her for Rs 7 crore in 2016. “Zintas cannot take advantage of their 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 a 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 also signed share transfer forms in favour of Ace. The certificates must be handed over to Ace.’’ The actor had challenged a judge’s January 28 order in a suit filed by Ace for transfer of flats’ share certificates, in custody of HC prothonotary (senior-most officer on administrative side). The firm 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 to transfer shares to Ace.

Zintas 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 ‘nodues letter’, so it would have a clear title.

Last year, Ace approached HC, apprehending the bank may take steps against the flats in case of default and Zinta filed an affidavit saying the “no-dues letter” was received in May 2018 and the loan was closed. Hence the new owner, Ace, sought the original title documents from the actor. Zinta opposed it and HC had last November directed the certificates be deposited with the prothonotary.

Her counsel said original papers could not be given when the dispute (time-barred) was pending. Ace’s counsel said the claim for Rs 90 lakh had no link with the transfer deed and was ‘interestfree deposit’ paid by it on behalf of the actor to her licensee, residing at the time. HC noted, “Ace bifurcated its claim.’’

HC said it was clear that Rs. 90,00,000 in regard to interestfree 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. It said, “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.’’ 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.