Delhi High Court
Charu Oberoi vs The State & Ors. on 31 January, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 31st January, 2022
+ TEST.CAS. 48/2021 & I.As.7175/2021, 7176/2021, 7177/2021,
8835/2021, 10567/2021, 14090/2021, 15843/2021, 15897/2021 &
15899/2021
CHARU OBEROI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Ms. Anjali
Dwivedi & Mr. Siddharth, Advs.
Versus
THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, Mr.
Gopal Singh, Mr. Manish Kumar,
Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Mr. Harsh
Choudhary and Mr. Sahil Raveen,
Advs. with R-5 in person
AND
+ TEST.CAS. 43/2021 & LAs.5748/2021, 5749/2021 & 15895/2021
CHIRAG OBEROI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, Mr.
Gopal Singh, Mr. Manish Kumar,
Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Mr. Harsh
Choudhary and Mr. Sahil Raveen,
Advs. with Petitioner-in-person.
Versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi and Ms.
Kavita Nailwal, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with
Signature Not Verified
TEST.CAS. 48/2021& TEST.CAS. 43/2021 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Ms. Anjali
Dwivedi & Mr. Siddharth, Advs.
For R-2to5 with Ms. Cham Oberoi,
Ms. Neelam Oberoi & Ms. Aarti
Oberoi in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
CCP(O) 46/2021 in TEST.CAS. 48/2021
1. The contempt petition has been filed in Test Cas. 48/2021 under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the
respondent No.5/petitioner in the Testamentary petition, against the
petitioner and the respondents No.1,2,3 and 4 in the Testamentary
petition.
2. The respondent No.5/petitioner has alleged that the respondents
herein have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 3 rd June,
2021, 26th July, 2021 and 23rd August, 2021 by which the parties were
directed to maintain status quo in respect of the scheduled properties. It is
submitted that this included 38,76,000 shares in the name of Late Sudhir
Kumar Uberoi which were transferred by the respondents into the
personal accounts of the respondent No.1 and value of which was more
than Rs. 61 crores. This was effected between 23rd September, 2021 and
30th September, 2021 when the interim directions were still in force.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior counsel for the
applicant/respondent no. 5 has submitted that despite directions of this
Court to the respondent No.2, being the petitioner in the Testamentary
petition, to file the original Will, the probate of which she was seeking in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
her petition, time was sought repeatedly on the ground that the parties
were abroad and were unable to travel whereas in actual fact, the
respondent No.2/petitioner had used the Will in Dubai, UAE not only to
effect the transfer of shares worth more than Rupees 61 crores, but also a
second tranche of 35,11,250 shares of Mezzan Holding Co. in Kuwait
(Symbol Code 823) and to have further moved the Dubai Court for
seeking inheritance on the basis of the said Will, despite the fact that she
herself had filed the present probate proceedings and the probate
proceedings initiated by the respondent No.5/petitioner were also
pending.
4. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the
respondents were acting deceitfully and in the face of the orders of this
Court to deprive the respondent No.5/petitioner of his rights being the
rightful heir to the estate of Late Shri Sudhir Kumar Uberoi. They were
intent only in dissipating the entire estate and thus causing irreparable
injury to the respondent No.5/petitioner.
5. Thus, it was prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against
the respondents and directions issued to them to transfer the shares to the
custody of this Court, so that no further transactions would be effected to
the detriment of the respondent No.5/petitioner. It was also urged that in
the light of the repeated acts of disobedience committed by the
respondents with impunity, they may be handed down adequate
punishment.
6. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondents to this petition, referring to the short affidavit filed by the
respondent No.2/petitioner submitted that the respondents were tendering
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
their unconditional apology, though no specific allegations have been
made against the respondents other than respondent No.2/petitioner. It is
also submitted that there was inadvertence in the action of respondent
No.2/petitioner in facilitating the transfer of the shares, as she considered
the act as a step to preserve the estate, since the shares were lying in the
account of the late father and the same were transferred only to the
mother respondent No.1, whose interest would naturally be the
paramount concern of all her children. It is further submitted by learned
senior counsel that since a DEMAT account was essential, therefore, it
was not feasible for the respondents to transfer the shares into the custody
of this Court. However, it was assured that no further transactions would
be made in respect of these shares.
7. At this stage, reference may also be made to the allegations of the
respondent No.5/petitioner including in the rejoinder filed by him and in
the application I.A. No.14090/2021 of proceedings initiated at Dubai,
UAE. It was explained by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
that what was sought from the Dubai Court was an inventory of assets as
it had come to the notice of the respondents that the respondent
No.5/petitioner had misused the power of attorney granted to him by the
late father at a time when he was ill and unable to conduct the affairs at
Dubai and Kuwait and the respondents were uncertain as to what assets
remained. It was submitted that the translation that they had filed was the
true translation of the proceedings. As the translations submitted by the
respondent No.5/petitioner were filed without a sworn affidavit they were
to be regarded as inaccurate.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.5/petitioner submitted that the documents filed before the Dubai Court
falsely stated that the father/husband of the parties had died at Kuwait and
thus the translation presented by the respondents would also be hardly
credible whereas the documents produced by the respondent
No.5/petitioner clearly established that court proceedings had been
initiated through advocates before the Dubai Court and what was done
was intentional and deliberate.
9. When the Testamentary petition was filed by the respondent
No.2/petitioner but 03.06.2021, this Court had directed the following:-
"5. Plaintiff has made out prima face case. The parties
will maintain status quo regarding the title and
possession regarding the estate stated in Annexure A
which belonged to late Shri Sudhir Kumar Uberoi"
It is abundantly clear that the directions issued by this Court was to "the
parties" and not to the respondents in the Testamentary petition, alone.
Thus, respondent No.2/petitioner was also bound by this order. Yet
evidently, she has taken steps to deal with the estate of her late father. To
say that she misunderstood the order is beyond belief as she has been
described by learned Senior Counsel as a self-made business woman.
10. Admittedly, she contacted the banks and lawyers to seek transfer of
the shares from her father's account. This can be seen only as a deliberate
and well thought out act. While dodging the need to file the original will
with her petition, she had no difficulty in sending it/handing it over to her
sister to initiate legal proceedings in a court in Dubai. It is very well to
say that only an inventory was sought, but it is a fact that the orders of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
Dubai Court has actually apportioned the shares of the parties before it.
What would be the effect of the orders of the Dubai Court will no doubt
be seen at the appropriate stage as the properties located in those
countries have also been included in the Testamentary petitions filed by
the respondent No.2/petitioner as well as the respondent No.5/petitioner.
It was also mentioned during arguments that the parties would seek to
exclude those properties from these Testamentary proceedings.
11. From the submissions made before the Court including by the
respondent No.1 in person and the respondent No.5/petitioner in person,
it is more than evident that the parties do not trust each other. While the
respondent No.5/petitioner has complained that the respondent No.1had
initiated proceedings in the Dubai Court, it is evident from these very
documents that the respondent No.5/petitioner had himself participated in
the same. In other words, he himself seems to have flouted the orders of
this Court.
12. The transfer of the shares was clearly unwarranted but since it has
been transferred by the respondent No.2/petitioner into the DEMAT
account of the mother, i.e, the respondent No.1 in the present contempt
petition, in view of the technical difficulties that would arise in
transferring the shares into the custody of the Registrar General, it is
directed that there shall be no transactions with reference to these
38,76,000 shares till further orders of this Court.
13. In the reply affidavit the respondent No.2/petitioner has submitted
with regard to the communication to the attorneys in Kuwait, it was only
intended to enquire about the status of 73,87,250 shares, whether they
have been sold to any third party or any monetary benefit drawn and if so
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
by whom and no benefit has accrued to the respondents to this petition.
The status in respect of these shares be filed before this Court. It is
directed that no transaction qua these shares shall also be undertaken till
further orders of this Court.
14. The respondent No.2/petitioner has submitted that she has no
knowledge of the remaining 35,11,250 shares as the same are not
traceable and that she is taking steps to trace the movement of those
shares. Their status be also informed to the Court.
15. Having come to a conclusion that the respondent No.2/petitioner
has violated the status quo order by taking action in transferring shares,
and the other respondents No.1, 3 & 4 have also abetted and supported
her including in filing motions before the Dubai Court, the next question
is whether the actions taken by the respondent No.2/petitioner are to be
considered so promoted by malafide and tending to obstruct the course of
justice that this Court should not accept their unqualified apology and
proceed further in the matter.
16. While clearly, the respondent No.2/petitioner does not appear to be
so naïve not to have understood the orders of this Court, yet it is also
quite evident that her actions have been prompted by her distrust of the
respondent No.5/petitioner and her keenness to ensure that the
respondents do not suffer adverse effects of his actions. Other actions
including initiation of proceedings in the Dubai Court or seeking
clarification from the attorneys at Kuwait may also be seen as intended to
preserve the estate, even though by doing so she was transgressing the
orders of this Court. This Court is inclined to give the respondents the
benefit of such a cloak for their actions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
17. In the totality of the circumstances including the extremely frayed
relations between the parties, this Court considers it expedient to close the
proceedings at this juncture, issuing a stern warning not only to the
respondents but including to respondent No.5/petitioner, that any action
that in future would appear to be a transgression of the orders of this
Court, would be viewed strictly and with the appropriate consequences.
18. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
19. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(ASHA MENON)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2022
ak
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:31.01.2022
18:12:26
