MUMBAI, July 17 -- A division bench of the Bombay high court has rapped the FE Dinshaw Trust, headed by industrialist Nusli Wadia, for indulging in "an elite form of extortion" and "a manifest abuse of the process of law" to stall the transfer of ownership of two plots in Malad to a construction firm. The division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata dismissed the trust's appeal against the order of a single-judge bench regarding conveyance of the two plots, measuring 69,709 square meters, saying, "There is no error either in law or on facts". The bench also rapped the trustees, including Maureen N Wadia and Rajesh Batra, for initiating "the luxury litigation, aimed solely at frustrating and delaying the plaintiff's (Bastion's) legitimate rights." The trustees had, through "calculated and prolonged obstruction" succeeded in depriving Bastion of possession of property they were lawfully entitled to, the judges said. "In our considered view, this proceeding amounts to an elite form of extortion and is a manifest abuse of the process of law. Such misuse of judicial machinery must be deterred in the strongest terms," the bench said. In March 2002, Bastion Constructions purchased the two plots from the trust via an auction, for a consideration of Rs.14 crore. Though the firm made the full payment, the formal transfer of ownership of the two plots was pending. In October 2006, the Wadias submitted an application before the competent authority under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, seeking exemption for surplus vacant land in the area. The Act was repealed on November 29, 2007 while the application was pending. Subsequently,when Bastion asked the trust to execute a conveyance of the plots in its favour via a letter dated February 12, 2008, the trustees terminated the sale agreement and forfeited the entire consideration. On March 4, 2015, a single judge bench of the high court allowed the suit filed by Bastion Constructions and directed the trust to execute conveyance in its favour. On June 27, the division bench dismissed the appeal filed by the trustees. In its detailed order, which became available on Wednesday, the bench said that the single judge's verdict did not require any interference. The issues involved in the litigation were straightforward and ought to have been resolved without delay, it observed. "Instead, the trustees engaged in a strategy of manufactured complexity, raising illusory issues where none existed-all while having accepted the entire sale consideration. Their conduct was designed solely to obstruct the plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of their investment," it said while dismissing the appeal. The bench, however, continued the stay on the single judge's order granted on November 28, 2016 for seven weeks....