Supreme Court of India (SCI) constructing.
| Photo Credit: ANI
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant any interim relief to the Birlas, even because it admitted their appeal against a Division Bench verdict of the Calcutta High Court which outlined the powers of directors over the property of the late Priyamvada Devi Birla, in accordance to a media assertion issued by Fox & Mandal, counsel for Lodhas.
Granting relief to the Lodhas on December 14, 2023, the division bench of the High Court restricted the function of directors in MP Birla Group firms, because the Bench noticed {that a} testamentary courtroom can’t resolve problems with title conclusively.
“A testamentary court cannot decide issues of title conclusively; such power lies purely within the domain of civil courts.
“However, while deciding an application under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act for appointment of administrator pendente lite, the testamentary court may decide the extent of the estate of the deceased testator/testatrix prima facie,” the Division Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya had mentioned, whereas passing the judgment.
Birlas moved the Supreme Court against the Division Bench verdict. The apex courtroom admitted their appeal for listening to. It, nonetheless, didn’t grant any interim relief.
“By declining to grant any interim relief, the apex court has cleared the deck for Harsh Vardhan Lodha, chairman of the MP Birla Group, to initiate legal proceedings to correct all wrongdoings that started with a section of administrators of Priyamvada Birla’s estate attempting to seize control of all entities of the Group on the strength of a controversial verdict of a single judge of the Calcutta High Court passed on September 18, 2020,” Fox & Mandal mentioned in its assertion.
Notably, passing an order on September 18, 2020, Justice Sahidullah Munshi of the High Court had restrained Harsh Vardhan Lodha from holding any workplace in any of the entities of MP Birla Group throughout pendency of the (Testamentary) Suit.
Lodhas alleged that though the verdict was modified by the Division Bench of the High Court, it was used as a deal with to disrupt the operations of a number of trusts, societies and corporations of the MP Birla Group, and led to proliferation of courtroom instances.
(The author is with The Hindu businessline)
