Calcutta High Court
Meenakshi Periwal And Ors vs Gautam Gan And Ors on 30 October, 2024
ODSL-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
IA NO. GA/1/2024
C.S. NO. 214 OF 2024
MEENAKSHI PERIWAL AND ORS.
VS.
GAUTAM GAN AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Date :October 30th, 2024
VACATION BENCH
Appearance :
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv,
Mr. Sanjiv Kumer Trivedi, Adv,
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv,
Ms. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Ms. Iram Hassan, Adv.
Mr. Sanket Sarawgi, Adv.
Ms. Mahima Cholera, Adv.
...for the petitioners.
The Court: The learned Advocate representing the petitioners
submitted the petitioners to be the legatees under the last Will and
testament of Priyamvada Devi Birla and interested in the welfare and
protection of the estate and functioning of the respondent companies. It was
further submitted that the respondent no. 7 by an email dated 25th of
October, 2024 informed the petitioners and other parties to the
Testamentary Suit being No. 6 of 2004 of a decision taken by the Board of
Directors of the said companies to execute a lease agreement with Birla
Building Limited for acquiring leasehold rights in respect of a space
admeasuring about 1852 sq. ft. situated at the East block of the 7th Floor in
Birla Building at an exorbitant rent of Rs.4,93,039/- per month (Rs.
1,84,181 + Rs. 1,84,181 + Rs. 1,24,677) with increase of lease rent at the
rate of 15% per annum after expiry of three years.
The Learned Advocate representing the petitioners referred to
paragraph No. 217 of the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 and 98 of 2020
which states as follows:
"Issue 3 ii) The very composition of the APL brews conflict of interest,
since two of the members represent the two warring factions and have left no
stone unturned to show their true colours in that regard. Thus, in view of the
discussion above, the only way in which the APL can function effectively is for
the third member, who is necessarily a retired nominated Judge, to act as
arbiter in case of conflict of decision between the other two members of the
APL. In case there is no resolution, the third member shall exercise veto
power. In case of major decisions (which decisions are 'major' for this purpose
shall be decided by the third member), the APL may seek appropriate orders
from the testamentary court. The APL must also keep in mind that it is not an
adjudicatory authority but merely the representative of the estate of the
deceased testatrix."
The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner further stated the
grant of lease to a rival claimant will affect the interest of the petitioners,
which fell within the purview of the major decisions to be executed
exclusively seeking appropriate orders from the testamentary court. It was
further submitted one M. K. Sharma who was the nominee of the petitioner
had addressed a letter dated October 25, 2024 expressing his dissent and
grievance against shifting of the office and registered office of the companies
to a place belonging to the Birla Buildings Group at an exorbitant rent as
aforesaid concerning execution of a lease yet to be accomplished with
respect of an additional space of 1852 sq.ft. situated at East Block of the 7th
Floor in Birla Building to Justice Shah.
The Learned Advocates Mr. D.N. Sharma, Ms. Pritha Basu, Mr.
Akansha Chopra, Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Ms. Enakshi Saha, Mr. Debartha
Chakraborty, Mr. Krishnaraj Thackker, Mr. Saptarshi Kar appeared without
notice being served upon them and without filing respective vakalatnama to
represent the cause of the respondent companies as well as joint
administrator pendente lite. The Advocates controverted the status of the
petitioner to file the instant application objecting the maintainability of the
suit as well as the jurisdiction of a civil court. It was further stated that the
execution of a lease in question did not categorize a major decision
pertaining to the subject matter of the dispute pending before the
testamentary court. The petitioners being the share-holders are yet to be
recognized as legatees to the Will in question and referred to Paragraphs
No.212, 213, 215 and 218 of the judgment pronounced by the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 14th of December, 2023 in APO NOS. 89, 90,
91, 92, 94, 95, 96 and 98 of 2020 arising out of TS/6/2004.
The status of the petitioners to object to the execution of the aforesaid
leasehold rights over the property as aforesaid is to be decided after
considering the submissions of the respondent companies. The respondent
companies are yet to be legally represented through respective learned
Advocates filing their Vakalatnamas in the Court. Without assailing the oral
submissions of learned Advocates representing both the parties and
considering the documents in its proper perspective, it would not be prudent
on the part of this Court to form an opinion at this stage. Whether the
execution of the lease by the respondent companies to the detriment of the
lawful petitioners fell within the ambit of a major decision to be acted upon
seeking appropriate orders from the testamentary court cannot be decided
at this stage without hearing both the parties being legally represented.
The Learned Advocate for the petitioners is to serve the notice upon
the respondents along with a copy of the application and annexed
documents prior to the next date of hearing and file an affidavit of service to
that effect.
For ends of justice and to avoid further complications, without
considering the merits of the case, the execution of the lease agreement
pertaining to an additional space measuring 1852 sq.ft. situated at East
Block of the 7th Floor in Birla Building is stayed till 4th of November, 2024.
Let the instant application along with the plaint be placed before the
regular Bench for its consideration on 4th of November, 2024.
(ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.)
KB
