Grandchildren too late to stake any claim: Singhania
The Bombay High Court has reserved its order on the application filed by Vijaypat Singhania's four grandchildren seeking directions against him not to deal with any property included in a 1998 Family Settlement.
The settlement was signed by Singhania's estranged older son Madhupati, whose children Raivathari, 18, Ananya, 29, Rasaalika, 26, and Tarini, 20, recently challenged the agreement.
Madhupati had left the Mumbai family home 17 years ago with his wife Anuradha and settled in Singapore. His children filed the suit in February, staking claim to their share of “family properties.“
On Monday, the court asked Sharmila Deshmukh, lawyer for the grandkids, to satisfy the court on why it should suddenly restrain Vijaypat's side after such a long gap. “Even if you win the case, he has enough means to compensate you in terms of money. After all, it all boils down to monetary claims,“ remarked the court.
Deshmukh argued that as per the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father could not have dealt in any property in his minor kids' names without a court order.
Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar, appearing for Vijaypat, refuted this submission by saying that on the one hand the grandkids were saying it was a joint family property and on the other hand they are relying on Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
According to Tulzapurkar's submissions, if the property was joint family property, then a minor's consent or a court order is not required to deal with the “undivided property.“ He added that the grandkids had sought to challenge the outcome of a document without offering to surrender the benefits received by them under that document.
“They have in fact clearly stated that they don't want to challenge the benefits received by their father under that document, which shows the collusion between both the parties (Madhupati and his children),“ Tulzapurkar submitted.
Tulzapurkar further emphasised the major delay in filing of the case. “As per their (grandkids') own admission in the affidavit, the two elder kids had become major by 2006, therefore the suit will be hopelessly time-barred with respect to them at least,“ he submitted. Madhupati and his wife Anuradha's lawyer Nivedita Sharma submitted that the Family Settlement had no legal standing as the other side had not executed any document like salegiftrelinquishment deed in order to give effect to the Family Settlement. She denied any collusion between the kids and their parents, calling it an independent exercise on the part of the kids to pursue their legal rights. The court, however, directed her to restrict her arguments only to the extent required for the purpose of deciding the interim relief application.
Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas, appearing for the flagship company Raymond Ltd, argued that the company's name was dragged only to sensationalise the issue. “The company is neither a party nor privy to the execution of the Family Settlement. There are shares of almost 18 companies which are part of the Family Settlement, but no other company has been made a party in the suit,“ he submitted.
He further added that the company was not supposed to keep track if the owner of a particular share was party to execution of any document involving the shares of a company, therefore such details cannot be sought from any company under the Companies Act of 1956. “We have records of the member one who owns a share as per our record. It has got nothing to do with that person's involvement in execution of any other document,“ he added. All the parties cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments in support of their submissions.
The settlement was signed by Singhania's estranged older son Madhupati, whose children Raivathari, 18, Ananya, 29, Rasaalika, 26, and Tarini, 20, recently challenged the agreement.
Madhupati had left the Mumbai family home 17 years ago with his wife Anuradha and settled in Singapore. His children filed the suit in February, staking claim to their share of “family properties.“
Justice Gautam Patel's order, which is likely to be pronounced on Friday, will decide the fate of assets worth over Rs 1,000 crore. This includes assets listed in the 1998 Family Settlement about two lakh shares of the flagship company Raymond Ltd, which was in Madhupati's name, Madhupati's 124th share in J K Bankers the company from where the entire business started and a few assets listed in the children's names, including a plot in Chhindwara-Madhya Pradesh jointly held by Vijaypat and the grandchildren.
On Monday, the court asked Sharmila Deshmukh, lawyer for the grandkids, to satisfy the court on why it should suddenly restrain Vijaypat's side after such a long gap. “Even if you win the case, he has enough means to compensate you in terms of money. After all, it all boils down to monetary claims,“ remarked the court.
Deshmukh argued that as per the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father could not have dealt in any property in his minor kids' names without a court order.
Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar, appearing for Vijaypat, refuted this submission by saying that on the one hand the grandkids were saying it was a joint family property and on the other hand they are relying on Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
According to Tulzapurkar's submissions, if the property was joint family property, then a minor's consent or a court order is not required to deal with the “undivided property.“ He added that the grandkids had sought to challenge the outcome of a document without offering to surrender the benefits received by them under that document.
“They have in fact clearly stated that they don't want to challenge the benefits received by their father under that document, which shows the collusion between both the parties (Madhupati and his children),“ Tulzapurkar submitted.
Tulzapurkar further emphasised the major delay in filing of the case. “As per their (grandkids') own admission in the affidavit, the two elder kids had become major by 2006, therefore the suit will be hopelessly time-barred with respect to them at least,“ he submitted. Madhupati and his wife Anuradha's lawyer Nivedita Sharma submitted that the Family Settlement had no legal standing as the other side had not executed any document like salegiftrelinquishment deed in order to give effect to the Family Settlement. She denied any collusion between the kids and their parents, calling it an independent exercise on the part of the kids to pursue their legal rights. The court, however, directed her to restrict her arguments only to the extent required for the purpose of deciding the interim relief application.
Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas, appearing for the flagship company Raymond Ltd, argued that the company's name was dragged only to sensationalise the issue. “The company is neither a party nor privy to the execution of the Family Settlement. There are shares of almost 18 companies which are part of the Family Settlement, but no other company has been made a party in the suit,“ he submitted.
He further added that the company was not supposed to keep track if the owner of a particular share was party to execution of any document involving the shares of a company, therefore such details cannot be sought from any company under the Companies Act of 1956. “We have records of the member one who owns a share as per our record. It has got nothing to do with that person's involvement in execution of any other document,“ he added. All the parties cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments in support of their submissions.
