9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noy, Sr.Adv., Mr. Vineet Naik, Adv., Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Adv....for Birla Corporation Ltd. Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra,Sr.Adv., Mr.Abhrajit Mitra,Sr.Advocate Mr.Debanjan Mandal,Advocate, Mr.Sanjiv Trivedi,Advocate, Mr.Soumya Roychowdhury,Advocate....for Harsh Vardhan Lodha. Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra,Sr.Adv., Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury,Adv., Mr.Kunal Vajani,Advocate, Mr.Rachit Lakhmani,Advocate, Mr.Sanket Sarawgti,Advocate, Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee,Adv., Mr.Shaunak Mitra,Advocate.....for Meenakshi Pariwal. Mr.Partha Sarathi Sengupta,Sr.Adv., Mr.Deepan Kumar Sarkar,Adv., Ms.Iram Hassan,Adv....for Aditya Vikram Lodha. Mr. S.K. Kapur, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Hirak Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv., Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. K V Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh, Adv., Dr. Birendra Saraf, Adv.,Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Malay Seal, Adv., Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Adv., Ms. Namrata Vinod, Adv., Mr. N.G. Khaitan, Adv., Mr. Prasun Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Pratik Mukhopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Adv., Ms. Suchismita Chatterjee, Adv., Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der impugned amounted to interference with its affairs. 4. The appellants have produced e-mails dated September 21, 2020 by which APLC intimated the judgment and order impugned to these appellants, seeking necessary compliance and urge that interim order staying the judgment impugned may be passed in order to protect the running of these companies. 5. Learned Senior Advocates appearing for the appellants pointed out that the judgement suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction, non application of mind, misconception of law, contradiction, and perversity. It was argued that the appealing companies and society are not even defendants in the probate suit and, therefore, no order affecting them could have been issued and that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction, going by Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The testament which is subjected to the probate proceedings cannot be construed as something which authorises any activity by or on behalf of the estate of the testatrix, in excess of the shareholdings in the companies concerned, it is argued. To demonstrate this point succinctly, it is argued that the share-holding referable to the estate is that which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Meetings and exercised their voting rights to the extent of their share holding. 7. The appellants drew the attention of the court to a decision of a co-ordinate bench of this court in the matter of Priyamvada Devi Birla vs. Ajay Kumar Newar and Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online Cal 1541. On an application filed by two sets of defendants for a mandatory injunction upon Birla Corporation in which PDB had some shares for a issuance of direction upon HVL and Birla Corporation, the court held that injunction sought for against HVL could not be granted as he was not a party in the probate suit, in his capacity as the chairman of the Board of Directors in Birla Corporation. The court refused to pass any direction either for the production of the relevant documents relating to the proposed deal with Reliance Infrastructure or against HVL, as the company could not be linked up with his position as a legatee under the Will. It was held that the decisions taken by the Board of Directors could not be a subject matter of scrutiny by the Probate Court. 8. Reference was made to the decision of Shashi Prakash Khemka vs. NEPC India Ltd., reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 223, in support of the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n mind the limited jurisdiction and function of the Probate Court. Thus, the power of the probate court to grant an interim order had to be construed in relation to the grant of probate and letters of administration. Such a proceeding was not concerned with the title or even the existence of the property, but could only determine whether the Will was executed by the testator of his own free will. The Probate Court could not to be converted to decide issues alien to the grant of probate. 12. Another decision was cited namely, Sukhal Sarkar vs. Union of India and others, on the proposition that a court of law had to act within the four corners of the statutory command and not deviate from it. That what could not be done directly could not be done indirectly. 13. The interlocutory order issued by the learned Single Judge is one essentially in favour of the defendants. Therefore, we have heard the learned Advocates for the defendants in support of the order. The learned Senior Advocates for the defendants argued that the different decisions inter partes at various stages through the progress of the probate suit by the Probate court as well as the Appellate Court and the Hon'ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e APLC, since, in our considered view, it is not necessary to deal with any submission by the APLC while we are considering the applications for stay pending in intra Court appeals against the order of the Probate Court issued under Section 247 of the Succession Act and of which the APLC are not apparently aggrieved. 16. We may, however, note that we have noticed that there was dissent in the APLC and the learned Advocates appearing for the members of the APLC wanted to point out certain matters touching the APLC' decision. We are of the view that this is a matter which can gain attention at the final hearing of these applications and the appeals, since, as of now, we are only considering the questions whether an interim order of stay pending further consideration of the application for stay is to be issued at this stage. 17. It is well settled that the position of Administrator pendente lite (APL) in terms of Section 247 of the Succession Act is that the APL represents the estate of the deceased for all purposes, except distribution of the estate. APL shall be subject to the immediate control of the probate Court and shall act under its direction. Except to the limit it is circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treat it as a perverse decision or one which deflects the course of justice; or, that it is not in the best interest of the PDB's estate. On the basis of various materials on record, to which we may not make any copious reference now, we notice that there are different orders inter partes which tend to indicate that this matter requires further consideration without any interlocutory order staying the operation of the impugned order. We are also of the view that the power of the APLC to control and administer the estate of PDB is repeatedly asserted through the different judicial orders of the Probate Court, the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. We, therefore, do not find any reason to issue any order of stay as sought for at this stage. 20. We may, however, clarify that the word "implement" occurring in paragraph (a) among the three directions issued by the learned Judge means "abide by". It is further clarified that the operation of paragraph (b) among the directions would be a restriction on plaintiff no. 1 Harsh Vardhan Lodha to the extent of it being a restriction from holding any office in any of the entities of the M P Birla Group d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
