G L Raheja’s daughter to pursue his suit against son

Mumbai: The legal battle between the heirs of late construction czar G L Raheja will now continue in the Bombay high court with daughter Sonali Arora stepping into his shoes to pursue the suit he had filed against only son Sandeep over his Rs 11,000 crore empire.
Last week, the Supreme Court disposed of a special leave petition filed by Sandeep against an April 2015 Bombay high court order. The HC had allowed a plea made by Sonali, rejecting Sandeep’s opposition to it and permitting her to be transposed in her father’s place in the suit.
On January 11, an SC bench of Justices Pinaki Ghose and Amitava Roy, after hearing submissions from senior counsel A M Singhvi on behalf of Sandeep, Shyam Diwan on behalf of Sonali, and P Chidambaram for others, observed: “It appears that the parties have agreed that the daughter, Sonali Arora, will be transposed as the legal representative of the late G L Raheja in his place in the 2012 suit.’’
The order paves the way for trial to proceed in high court. The suit is at the stage where Sonali’s cross-examination is to be recorded and is likely to come up next month.
Sandeep’s concern was that Sonali could be the legal representative only for that one suit and not act as an executor or claim to be entitled to be impleaded as heir in other diverse proceedings in the HC. Advocate Vivek Vashi, Sandeep’s lawyer in Mumbai, when was contacted on Monday, said he did not wish to comment.
In the HC order that Sandeep had gone to SC against, Justice Gautam Patel had observed that G L Raheja’s story has “shades of the tragedy of King Lear”.
The death of G L Raheja in March 2014 had left a fractious family of three children—son Sandeep and daughters Sonali Arora and Sabita Narang—in multiple litigation launched by all three, including over Raheja’s wills, over the vast construction empire.
Sandeep’s contention is that following his father’s death, he is in majority control since G L Raheja had given him 58% control and that his sister cannot raise a challenge now.
The 2015 HC order had said: “Should Sandeep, merely by virtue of his father’s passing, be allowed to get away without having to substantiate his defence, and be permitted to defeat his sisters’ claims? This is just what Sandeep claims and it is hard to conceive of a more unjust and inequitable approach. After all, Sandeep’s defences are untouched by Sonali’s application for substitution.”
Their other sister, Sabita Narang, had taken a stand different from Sonali and claimed 25% undivided share based on an alleged 1995-96 family arrangement.