TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the 1st Respondent / Trust cannot Claim any Tangible or Intangible property, based on the Two Trust Deeds dated 09.02.2015 and 16.02.2015 respectively - not obtained the sanction of any Court of Law, and there being a conspicuous silence in regard to the applicability of Regulation 28 of the CLB Regulations 1991, permitting the Legal Heirs to prefer an Application for Substitution. Unless the pending Lis between the Parties are finally decided, no interest in the property can said to be that of them, so as to substitute / implead them, as Party / Parties, especially when the validity of the Will dated 18.02.2015, is yet to be established, in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law. Viewed in that perspective, this Tribunal, is perforced to interfere with the impugned order and sets aside the same, to secure the ends of justice. The matter is remitted back to the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai, for fresh consideration, and for passing a reasoned speaking order (ofcourse, un-influenced and untrammelled with any of the observations made by this Tribunal in these Appeals), granting liberties to the respective Parties to make a mention and to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as TCA/1/2016, on the file of National Company Law Tribunal , Chennai). 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Tribunal that the 2nd Respondent / Applicant filed CA/69/2016 in CP/1/2014 (erstwhile CA/1/2014, on the file of National Company Law Tribunal ) to substitute him as Legal Heir / Representative of the Petitioner in Company Application / Petition . 4. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant, on 09.02.2015, the Applicant (Deceased) in CA/1/2014 had declared the 1st Respondent / Public Trust and on 16.02.2015, he declared Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Trust , a Private Trust . As a matter of fact, according to the Appellant , the Applicant (Deceased) had executed a Will bequeathing all his immovable and movable properties (including Fixed Deposits and Loans ) to the 1st Respondent/Trust. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Applicant (Deceased) in his Will had stated that he intended to transfer some of the movable properties , in favour of the Private Trust during his lifetime. Furthermore, the Applicant (Deceased) on 30.09.2015 had transferred all his movable properties, listed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent on the demise of the Applicant, in certain event, the Appellant is to initiate Legal Proceedings , to seek and obtain refund from the 1st Respondent. In the interregnum, the 2nd Respondent will claim the said amount from the Appellant. Therefore, it is the plea of the Appellant, that it has a Locus to file the instant Appeal , as the Appellant s rights will be seriously and irreversibly prejudiced. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defining Gift and points out that as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a movable property , can be gifted either by a Registered Instrument signed by the Donor (Applicant (Deceased) or by an Attorney on his behalf with Attesting Witness ) or by Delivery . Also, it is pointed out on behalf of the Appellant that there is no Registered Document executed by the Donor (Applicant) duly witnessed, gifting the Loan / Deposit to the Private Trust . 11. Advancing his argument, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no Delivery for the purported deposit, as no Receipt was issued. Therefore, it is the plea of the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in Maiyan Dalip Rajeshwari Debi v. Mohan Bikram Sah, reorted in AIR 1945, Allahabad Page 409, wherein at paragraphs 26 and 27, it is observed and held as under: 26. A question has arisen what would be the appropriate section of the Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) applicable to such a gift and how such a gift should be effected under the law. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on Section 123 which says that for the purpose of making a gift of moveable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered. He has argued that the handing over of the fixed deposit receipts amounted to a delivery and was sufficient compliance with the provisions of the law. Learned Counsel for the defendant, however, has urged that even if the fixed deposit receipts were handed over to the persons concerned, it would not be sufficient compliance with Section 123 of the Act, and according to him so long as the Rani was in a position to withdraw the money from the banks it could not be said that she had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking the deposit undertakes that he would not withdraw the money within a certain period. There being no instrument in writing in this case it cannot be argued that if Section 130 of the Act was applicable the provisions of that section had been complied with. If Section 123 of the Act was applied, the question would arise whether the handing over of the fixed deposit receipts, if proved, amounted to a delivery. The fixed deposit receipts represented the money in the bank and as they were payable to either or survivor, either of the joint depositors could withdraw the whole amount, but on such withdrawal he would be trustee for the other to the extent of his share. It is argued that in case of a gift and the handing over of the fixed deposit to the donees no such question of trust as regards the half share of the money would arise and therefore it must be deemed that it was a completed gift. In case Section 123 were applicable then the handing over of the fixed deposit receipt may be enough. But to my mind the making of a gift of a fixed deposit in a bank is not the making of a gift of moveable property but is the gift of an actionable claim. I am of the opinion that Section 130 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Will . Therefore, the right claimed by the 1st Respondent to the purported deposit (claiming a right to substitute itself) arises from (a) inclusion of the alleged Deposit as a movable property in the Schedule to the Will and (b) Clause 9 (iii) of the Private Trust Deed, by which the same was allegedly transferred to the 1st Respondent and assuming the Will is disproved in Testamentary Proceedings (pending before the Hon ble Madras High Court), the oral gift will fall through, and the 1st Respondent would have no right to substitute itself as the Legal Heir / Representative of the deceased Applicant. . 19. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant while winding up his argument, place for allowing the Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 43 of 2022 and adjourned the hearing in the substitution applications filed by the Respondents sine die and pending before the Tribunal , awaiting final adjudication of the Will in Testamentary Proceedings . 1st Respondent s Contentions : 20. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contends that Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy during his lifetime made a Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 16.02.2015 (Registered as Doc. No. 61 of 2015, in the Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dule 1-B contains the list of Movables , namely, Fixed Deposits in Companies and Loans and Advances . 23. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent refers to the First Meeting of the Board of Trustees of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Trust was held on 06.04.2015, in which, Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy was present and further that Clause 9 of the Minutes , is as under: Acceptance of gifts of movable assets by Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy to the Trust The draft letter as placed before the meeting and initiated by Dr. A.C. Muthiah was approved. 24. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent adverts to the Second Meeting of the Board of Trustees of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Trust on 06.11.2015, in which, it was resolved that The Trustees placed on record the oral gift of all the movable assets owned and possessed and mentioned in the Will dated 18/02/2015, registered as Doc. No. 16 of 2015, before the Sub Registrar, Mylapore, by the Founder Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy to Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Trust made by him by oral declaration to the Trustees in the presence of Mr. V. Jayaraman Mr. K. Muthuvellayan on his birthday on 30th September 2015. The Trust has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ets by the Donor Viz. Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy , to the Donee , on 30.09.2015. on his birthday which was accepted by the Trustees of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Trust . 30. According to the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent there is a valid gift of all the Fixed Deposits and Loans and Advances , owned by Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy , in favour of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Trust on 30.09.2015, as recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 06.11.2015. Further, following the demise of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy on 02.12.2015, by virtue of Clause 9 (3) of the Deed of Trust dated 16.02.2015, the properties of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Trust will automatically become the properties of the 1st Respondent . 31. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submits that the instant Company Appeal filed by the Appellant is liable to be dismissed , because of the fact that the Appellant / Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited , have no Locus to assail the impugned order dated 26.05.2022, passed by the ( National Company Law Tribunal ), substituting the 1st Respondent / Trust , in place of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy . Hence, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the title of Mrs. Mitter to the property. Now if that title rests on Mrs. Mitter's being legatee of Dr. Miss Mitter the appellant will have to prove that Mrs. Mitter had the right as a legatee under the will of Dr. Miss Mitter. As soon as the appellant wants to prove that, Section 213 will immediately stand in her way for no right as an executor or a legatee can be proved unless Probate or letters of administration of the will under which such right is claimed have been obtained. The words of Section 213 are not restricted only to those cases where the claim is made by a person directly claiming as legatee. The section does not say that no person can claim as a legatee or as an executor unless he obtains Probate or letters of administration of the will under which he claims. What it says is that no right as an executor or legateee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless Probate or letters of administration have been obtained of the will under which the right is claimed, and therefore it is immaterial who wishes to establish the right as a legatee or an executor. Whosoever wishes to establish that right, whether it be a legatee or an executor himself or somebody el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppened in those proceedings would not establish the title to the house either of the appellant or of Mrs. Mitter. In particular, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the order of the High Court dated December 17, 1943, by which the application of the plaintiff-respondent for letters of administration of the will of Dr. Miss Mitter was dismissed. In that ease certain preliminary issues were framed one of which related to estoppel with respect to Mrs. Mitter's right to this property. What happened in that case was that Mrs. Bose who had made the application did not appear and thereupon her application was dismissed for that reason obviously under 0rder 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these circumstances there can be no question of res judicata as to the title to the property in dispute. The contention on this head must therefore be rejected. Re (iii) 9. As to estoppel, reliance is mainly placed on the applications of Mrs. Bose herself for the grant of letters of administration of a will alleged to have been made in her favour by Mrs. Mitter. In that application Mrs. Bose had shown the house as if it belonged to Mrs. Mitter. Her application was as we hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e personal property of the testator (including right of action) vests in the executor(s) on the death of the testator. For purposes of deciding this matter, section 336 of the Act is also relevant as it provides for assent of the executor to the legacy after the death of the testator. It provides that an executor gets divested of his interest as an executor from the death of the testator when he assents to a specific legacy. Section 213 acts as a bar to the establishment of rights under the Will by an executor or a legatee unless probate or letters of administration have been obtained. This bar comes into play only when a right as an executor or a legatee under Will is sought to be established. However an unprobated Will can be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes in any other proceedings apart from probate proceedings. (See: Cherichi v. Ittianam [AIR 2001 Kerala 184]). Therefore, on the demise of the testatrix, the said property vested in the executors. The question which arises for determination on the facts of this case is whether the executors assented to the vesting of the said property in the Hospital in terms of Section 336 of the 1925 Act. In this case, the facts sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have been denied. Whether the decree under appeal can be sustained or not in view of the subsequent event, would be a question to be examined by the High Court but only after the applicant before it was permitted to be brought on record. We do not express any opinion on that aspect of the issue as the same would be examined by the High Court on its own merits. 35. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent falls back upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in G. Ganesan 5 Ors. v. P. Sundari 2 Ors., reported in (2011) 2 CTC at Pages 435 and 436, wherein, it is observed and held as under: A close reading of the above judgments would make it very clear that it is the settled proposition of law that in view of the bar contained in Section 213 of the Act, an unprobated Will cannot be admitted in evidence in any proceeding to establish any right or title derived under the Will. However, for collateral purposes such an unprobated Will can be proved in evidence. [Para 17] Now in the case on hand, the question is as to whether the unprobated Will is sought to be proved by the Respondents for collateral purpose as it is claimed by them. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al (AT) (CH) No. 45 of 2022: Preface: 36. The Appellant (2nd Respondent in Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 43 of 2022), has preferred the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 45 of 2022 in renumbered TCP/1/2016 (CA/1/2014, on the file of Company Law Board) in CA/69/2016, on being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 26.05.2022, whereby and whereunder, the National Company Law Tribunal , Chennai Bench, had dismissed CA/69/2016, filed by the 2nd Respondent/Applicant. Appellant s Contentions: 37. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is the Son and Sole surviving Clause-I Heir of the Original Applicant (Late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy) in C.P. No. 1 of 2014 (TCP No. 1 of 2016), and that a refund of Interest Free Loan , given by the Applicant for the period from 23.03.2013 and 30.03.2013, to the 2nd Respondent/Company was Rs.55,26,38,122.91. 38. According to the Appellant, his father (Late Applicant) was suffering from Stage IV Liver Cancer and was taking medicines which had seriously incapacitating effect on his mental faculties and after prolonged suffering, he expired on 02.12.2015. Moreover, from the beginning of Year 2015 itself, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng brought on record as necessary parties 43. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a stand that the National Company Law Tribunal , had committed an error in applying Rule 53 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, (which was not in force at the time of filing of Contesting Application for Substitution as Legal Representative, by the Appellant and the 1st Respondent). 44. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant advances an argument that when the 1st Respondent had filed the Application , only when the Appellant had a Legal Right to step into the shoes of the Applicant (Deceased) and that the 1st Respondent had no Locus to prepare any application and till date has no Locus standi , as the Competent Court is yet to decide the Locus of the 1st Respondent . 45. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that it is the alternate plea of the 1st Respondent , its interests in the alleged deposit (subject matter of the main Application Viz., CA/1/2014), stood transferred to itself, from the Private Trust on 02.12.2015 (date of death of the Applicant ) and hence, as per the Company Law Board Regulations (old one) and as per NCLT Rules , 2016, the 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also indicated that any other movable properties founder shall transfer to the Trust by means of delivery of possession. In future, shall also be included as trust property. 14. The above clause clearly indicates that only on transfer of any movable properties by founder himself in future the properties will come as Trust properties. In the given case no material was placed to show that any such transfer was taken place in respect of movable properties in favour of private trust. On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioner would state that there was oral gift in respect of movable properties in favour of the private trust. I am of the view that only when trust acquire the ownership of such properties by transfer as stated in Clause 7, then Clause 9 would come into play that is, after the life time of the settlor, the properties of this trust would go to the public trust. Clause 9 is subject to the proof of clause 7 i.e., transfer. Admittedly, the case of transfer in favour of public trust is a disputed fact and the same cannot be decided in this writ petition since it is matter of evidence. and dismissed the Writ Petition, because of the disputed fact being invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... App (AT) (CH) No. 45 of 2022. 1st Respondent s Pleas: 53. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contends that the 1st Respondent is not claiming any right as Executor and Legatee under the Will dated 18.02.2015 and per contra, the Will dated 18.02.2015 is relied upon by the 1st Respondent for collateral purposes. 54. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent adverts to the fact that the Appellant / Applicant ( Mr. M.A.M.R. Muthiah ) had filed CA/69/2016, seeking to substitute himself in the place of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy on the strength of a Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.03.2016 and further that the validity of the Legal Heir Certificate assailed before the Hon ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.15003 of 2106 and the same is pending and therefore, it cannot be relied upon. 55. The other stand of the 1st Respondent is that a mere perusal of the registered Will dated 18.02.2015 executed by Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy shows that the Adoption of the Appellant was contrary to the custom and usage of the community and contrary to the Will dated 09.02.1970, executed by Raja Sir M.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar . 56. The Learned Counsel for the 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement under Section 213(1) of the Act is not necessary. The purpose of the State Amendment made to the Act, as stated above, is to avoid the cumbersome procedure of obtaining probate or Letters of Administration in respect of the Will executed by Christians for the purpose of establishing right under the Will when such right is sought to be asserted in proceedings in Court. The prohibition under Section 213 of the Act is regarding establishing any right under the Will without getting probate or Letters of Administration and that section cannot be understood as one by which the vesting of right as per the provisions of the Will is postponed until the obtaining of probate or Letters of Administration. The Will will take effect on the death of the executant of the Will and what Section 213 of the Act says is that the right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of justice only if Probate or Letters of Administration is obtained. 8. Amendment to Section 213 of the Act cannot be said to be an amendment which has retrospective operation. Cases in which the bar under Section 213 of the Act is not there, execution of the Will can be proved in proceedings in which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made during the pendency of the Appeal and at the time when the suit was pending in the Lower Appellate Court the provision was that for establishing right as mentioned in Section 213 of the Act, Will had to be probated. In the above decision it was held by this Court that the amendment brought about could be taken into account in deciding the Second Appeal. In Hem Nolini v. Isolyne Sarojbashini, AIR 1962 SC 1471, it was held that the words of Section 213 of the Act are not restricted only to those cases where the claim is made by a person directly claiming as a legatee. It was also observed by the Supreme Court that the section does not say that no person can claim as a legatee or as an executor unless he obtains probate or Letters of Administration of the Will under which he claims and what it says is that no right as an executor or legatee can be established in any Court of justice unless probate or Letters of Administration have been obtained of the Will under which the right is claimed. Legal Representative: 61. Section 2 (11) of the Civil Procedure Code, defines Legal Representative meaning a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent persons claiming from the deceased, that should not prejudice the proceedings initiated by the deceased and when the inter se rights are determined among the persons claiming estate of the deceased, those could be determined separately or even some time in the same proceedings to come to a conclusion as to who should be the beneficiary of the decree, if any, passed in the suit. 67. Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Right to Intestate s Property , provides - (1) No right to any part of the property of a person who has died intestate can be established in any Court of Justice, unless letters of administration have first been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction . (2) This section shall not apply in the case of the intestacy of a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, [Indian Christian or Parsi] . 68. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Right as executor or legatee when established , enjoins (1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in [India] has granted probate of the Will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s section, all payments made to the holder of such certificate in ignorance of such supersession shall be held good against claims under the probate or letters of administration. 71. Section 216 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Grantee of probate or administration alone to sue, etc., until same revoked , provides that - After any grant of probate or letters of administration, no other than the person to whom the same may have been granted shall have power to sue or prosecute any suit, or otherwise act as representative of the deceased, throughout the State in which the same may have been granted, until such probate or letters of administration has or have been recalled or revoked . Deposit: 72. It is to be pointed out that Deposit , is given at the behest of an individual , who is making it. When the Deposit is payable on Demand , the Deposit Sum , become Payable , when a Demand is made. Loan: 73. A Loan is availed by a Borrower . In respect of Loan , an Obligation to repay a Sum , arises immediately, on receipt of Loan . Whether a Transaction is a Loan or Deposit is to be determined, based on the intention of the Parties and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of Section 5 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, a Trust , in relation to a movable property can be created either by a Declaration in a Non-Testamentary Instrument in writing, signed by the author of the trust and registered or by a transferor to the Trustee or Trustees , the ownership of the property. 81. As per Section 6 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, in order to create a valid Trust . The Author of Trust with reasonable certainty by any words or acts (a) An intention on his part to create a Trust (b) Purpose of Trust (c) Beneficiary (d) Trust Property (e) Transferring the Trust property to the Trustee , except when a Trust is created by a Will or he himself the Trustee . 82. In respect of an instrument of Trust , there will be two main Parties , (a) The Settlor on one side and (b) Trustees on the other side and (c) The Beneficiaries / 3rd Parties to the instrument , although not being direct Parties , which will be like a Tri-partite Transaction , as per decision, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamla Town Trust, reported in AIR 1996 SC at Page 620. Principles of Natural Justice: 83. The Rules of Natural Justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai , the Appellant / Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited in Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 43 of 2022 (as Respondent), had filed a Reply (to CA/1/2014, filed by the Applicant / Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy (since Deceased) on behalf of the Company (through its Director), inter alia stating that the Applicant had complied with the requirement of Rule 2 (b) (ix) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, at the time of giving the Loan and the same was taken note of, by the Board of Directors of the Company ( Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited ) and in addition, in accordance with the Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, the amount received from the Applicant was expressly recorded as Unsecured Loan from Related Parties (and not as Deposits ) in the Audited Financial Statements of the Company ( Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited ) for the Financial Year 2012-13. Furthermore, the Applicant as a Member was provided with the Annual Accounts of the Appellant s Company ( Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited ) for the Financial year 2012-13. 89. Moreover, the Appellant ( Chettinad Coa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t / Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited , the Audited Financial Statements of the Appellant s company for the Financial Year 2012-13, expressly record the amounts received from the Applicant as Unsecured Loan and not as a Deposit . Further, the claim of the Applicant (Deceased) in CA/1/2014 that interest-freeloan was interest bearing (15%) Deposit, is an after thought and unsupported by any documentation, etc. 96. It is pointed out by this Tribunal that the Appellant / Company ( Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited ) in its Reply to CA/1/2014, had taken a plea that since the Applicant (Deceased) had extended long-term-interest-free-loan with a tenure of 10 years, no amount is outstanding as on date and the same would fall due only between 23.03.2023 and 31.03.2023. Further, the Application in CA/1/2014, was filed by the Applicant (since Deceased) without supporting Affidavit and in fact, the CA/1/2014 was not filed as per Section 58 A of the Companies Act, 1956 and as per Regulation 14 of the Company Law Board Regulations, all Applications are required to be supported by an Affidavit of the Applicant , except in respect of Applications un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble High Court of Madras decides the issue. 100. It is not in dispute that the 1st Respondent / Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust in Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 43 of 2022 is the Applicant in TCA/1/2016, seeking to permit it to substitute / bring on record the Legal Heirs / Representatives of the deceased Applicant (Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust) in the place of late Applicant in CA/1/2014. 101. The Appellant in Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 45 of 2022, filed CA/69/2016 in CP/1/2014 (earlier CA/1/2014) as an Applicant to substitute him, as the Legal Heir / Representative of the Petitioner in the main Company Petition. 102. Dealing with the aspect of Locus standi of the Appellant / Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited , in preferring the Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 43 of 2022, raised on behalf of the 1st Respondent / Trust , to assail the impugned order dated 26.05.2022., passed by the Tribunal , substituting the 1st Respondent in place of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy (since deceased) on the basis that the Appellant / Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited , is not an Aggrieved Person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 43 of 2022, filed by the Appellant / Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited is maintainable in Law . 105. It is pointed out by this Tribunal that Probate could be granted only to an Executor under the Will expressly or by an Application , all other persons who Claim under the Will as Legatees or Beneficiaries , including a Universal Legatee or a Residuary Legatee are entitled only for the Grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed , as per decision in Laxman. S/o. Satteppa Hanchinamani v. Basavanni, S/o. Sattappa Hanchinamani Anr., reported in AIR 2018, Karn. 100. 106. It cannot be forgotten that the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration cannot confer Title to the Property , as per decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Development Authority v. Mrs. Vijaya C Gurshaney Anr., AIR 2003 SC Page 3669. 107. In Law , the Will must be proved in the manner provided in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 108. There is no two opinion of the fact that the 1st Respondent / Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -I, Chennai, this Tribunal comes to a consequent conclusion that the impugned order dated 26.05.2022 bristles with legal infirmities , because of the fact that it had not taken into account of the contents of notes of the submissions furnished by the Appellants and the 1st Respondent / Trust in Comp. App (AT) (CH) Nos. 43 and 45 of 2022 in a Qualitative , Quantitative and Threadbare fashion, not discussed about the pros and cons of the submissions made in a detailed manner, in the absence of Adjudication / Determination of Controversies relating to the Movables owned by the Applicant (Deceased), in an appropriate proceedings by the Competent Forum , (including the aspect of the plea of the Appellant in Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 45 of 2022 that the 1st Respondent / Trust cannot Claim any Tangible or Intangible property, based on the Two Trust Deeds dated 09.02.2015 and 16.02.2015 respectively - not obtained the sanction of any Court of Law , and there being a conspicuous silence in regard to the applicability of Regulation 28 of the CLB Regulations 1991, permitting the Legal Heirs to prefer an Application for Substitution . 113. More i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
