9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1421 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking permanent injunction restraining MMK from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Natasha of property - seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from changing the shareholding of JKPL by increasing the authorized share capital of JKPL - seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to transfer 300 shares of JKPL from MMK to Natasha - HELD THAT - Following directions are issued (i) At present it is in the best interest of MMK to continue living as he has been living for the past sometime and for the said status to continue. I have however met Kumkum and Rishab in Chamber and counseled them to independently of animosity between Natasha on the one hand and Kumkum and Vinay on the other hand, builda relationship in the best interest of MMK. It is not in dispute that Rishab is the son of brother of Kumkum and Vinay and there is no reason why Rishab, now having attained majority, should not make all possible attempts to forge a relationship anew with his paternal aunts and their families, forgetting the past acrimony between his mother Natasha and his paternal aunts. A cordial relationship between Rishab, Kumkum and Vinay will be the best therapy and medicine for MMK and I sincerely hope that all of them,claiming to be concerned of the well being of MMK, forgetting the past will make attempts in that direction. (ii) Rishab shall have unlimited access to MMK and all decision regarding best care of MMK shall be taken jointly by Rishab, Kumkum and Vinay, without squabbling about annas and paise. (iii) As far as the living expenses of MMK are concerned, the counsel for Kumkum and Vinay on his own has offered reduction thereof from the present ₹ 2 crores per annum to ₹ 1.40 crores or ₹ 1.50 crores per annum, since the litigation expenses are coming to an end. Rishab has however raised several questions with respect to the said expenses and which can broadly be categorized as (a) excessive rent of ₹ 2 lacs per month, (b) excessive electricity charges, and, (c) excessive deployment of servants. (iv) Since MMK requires constant looking after, provision for residence for his caretaker in the house occupied by him cannot be ignored. Though MMK may occupy one room only but it is necessary to have accommodation for at least two caretakers along with him. (v) In the accommodation of MMK, there should also be a spare guest bed room for Rishab to spend time with MMK if so desires. At the same time, there has to be sufficient space for visitors to MMK. Therefrom, it appears that the minimum accommodation required is of two bed rooms with living room, either with a servant quarter or of three bed rooms. (vi) Because the present accommodation occupied by MMK is owned by son of Kumkum, the reasonableness of the rent being paid therefor becomes an issue. Similarly, it appears that as many as 17 servants are not required by MMK. (vii) Since as of now there is no report of any deterioration in the health or condition of MMK, there is no need to change his caregivers. (viii) Rishab to place before the Observer appointed by this Court proposals for renting of accommodation as aforesaid for MMK in the vicinity of the accommodation presently in his occupation and the Observer on the basis thereof is requested to assess whether the rent being paid on behalf of MMK to the son of Kumkum is higher than the prevailing rents and if so, either the rent being paid on behalf of MMK be re-negotiated or MMK be shifted to another suitable accommodation. (ix) The Observer is also requested to, in presence of Rishab, Kumkum and Vinay, understand the need for number of servants/caregivers for MMK and salary thereof and fix the appropriate number of servants/caregivers and their salary. The said salary be disbursed directly by PHPL through Rishab, to the servants/caregivers and Rishab is made personally responsible for timely payment thereof. (x) The task having been entrusted to an Observer of the Court, the findings of the Observer in this regard shall bind the parties and the liberty hereinafter granted to the parties to apply to this Court shall not extend to such matters. (xi) The electricity bills for the accommodation in occupation of MMK shall be submitted to PHPL and be paid directly by PHPL, ensuring that there is no disconnection of electric supply. (xii) One car equivalent to Ford / Octavia Superb, in a good running condition, shall continue to be provided by PHPL for use of MMK along with a driver. If the vehicle has any breakdown incapable of rectification in a day or two, causing inconvenience to MMK, the said car shall be replaced. Similarly, on the day when the driver so assigned to MMK is on leave or otherwise not available, alternate driver shall be provided. (xiii) The rent as may be assessed by the Observer shall be re- considered every three years and the requirement of number of caregivers shall be re-considered annually by the Observer, save when change of circumstances requires immediate reconsideration thereof. (xiv) All the expenses so determined by the Observer shall be defrayed directly by the PHPL and Rishab is personally bound down to ensure timely payment/release thereof, to avoid any disruption in the care to MMK. (xv) A sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- per month be however disbursed by the PHPL to Kumkum for kitchen and daily need items for MMK. The said amount be increased annually by 25% of last paid amount. (xvi) In addition, the amount required to be spent for comfort or any other requirements of MMK be discussed by Rishab with Kumkum and be defrayed by PHPL and in the event of their not arriving at a consensus, decision of Observer shall bind the parties. (xvii) In the scheme devised above, an attempt has been made to achieve disbursement directly by PHPL through Rishab, of all the regular expenses for upkeep/comfort/living of MMK, to avoid suspicions on part of Natasha and Rishab of, the entire money directed to be paid under the earlier order being not utilized for the purpose. Only the quantum of kitchen and daily need items has been fixed and to be paid to Kumkum, who today is living closest to where MMK is living. It is expected that Rishab would not like to see his father suffering in any way for lack of funds/money. Besides causing misery to MMK and to those concerned about his welfare, the same will also reflect adversely on Rishab as son. It is expected that Rishab, more than Kumkum and Vinay, will be keen to ensure that MMK continues to enjoy the living standards as he has been enjoying in the past, specially when he was himself carrying on business. The Court has reposed faith in Rishab‟s goodness for his father, who today is helpless, and hopes that Rishab will not give occasion for the Court to in future, find, Rishab having failed his father.
Issues Involved:
1. Rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. 2. Possession of the plaintiff of the suit property. 3. Suit valuation for court fees and jurisdiction. 4. Limitation on transfer of shares. 5. Entitlement of the plaintiff to the reliefs prayed for. 6. Appointment of guardian for MMK. 7. Partition of properties. 8. Injunction against holding AGM of PHPL. 9. Appointment of guardian for MMK’s person and property. 10. Withdrawal of various litigations and complaints. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rights of the Plaintiff in the Suit Property: The plaintiff, Natasha, filed CS(OS) No.1321/2006 seeking a permanent injunction to restrain MMK from interfering with her possession of property no.15A, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi, and from creating third-party interests. The court initially restrained the defendants from dispossessing Natasha and directed parties to maintain status quo. The issues framed included whether the plaintiff had any rights in the suit property and whether she had been in possession since 1994. Ultimately, the court dismissed CS(OS) No.1321/2006 as withdrawn with liberty to Natasha to sue afresh if a new cause of action arises. 2. Possession of the Plaintiff of the Suit Property: The court had issued interim orders allowing Natasha to continue living in the guest annexe and restrained MMK from selling or parting with possession of the property. The court maintained the status quo during the proceedings and addressed the issue of possession in the context of the overall settlement. 3. Suit Valuation for Court Fees and Jurisdiction: The defendants contested the proper valuation of the suit for court fees and jurisdiction. However, this issue was subsumed within the broader context of the settlement and withdrawal of suits. 4. Limitation on Transfer of Shares: The court addressed whether the suit seeking transfer of shares of JKPL in favor of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. This was part of the broader settlement framework, and the specific issue of share transfer was not separately adjudicated upon as the suits were withdrawn. 5. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to the Reliefs Prayed For: The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs prayed for, including the transfer of shares and injunctions. The resolution of this issue was part of the broader settlement, leading to the withdrawal of the suits. 6. Appointment of Guardian for MMK: The court addressed multiple applications for the appointment of a guardian for MMK, who was not in good health. Kumkum and Vinay were appointed as guardians ad litem. The court later considered the suitability of Rishab as a guardian, given the family dynamics and MMK's mental state. The court ordered that Rishab should have unlimited access to MMK and that decisions regarding MMK's care should be taken jointly by Rishab, Kumkum, and Vinay. 7. Partition of Properties: Rishab filed CS(OS) No.1435/2006 seeking partition of property no.15A, PHPL, and land in Uttaranchal. The court framed issues regarding whether the properties were ancestral or self-acquired. Ultimately, CS(OS) No.1435/2006 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to Rishab to sue afresh if a cause of action arises. 8. Injunction Against Holding AGM of PHPL: Rishab and Natasha filed CS(OS) No.1137/2014 to restrain PHPL from holding its AGM. The court issued a common consent order regulating the functioning of PHPL and ensuring transparency. There was no need for modification of the order disposing of CS(OS) No.1137/2014. 9. Appointment of Guardian for MMK’s Person and Property: CS(OS) No.2161/2015 was filed by Kumkum, Vinay, and MMK seeking appointment as guardians of MMK's person and property. The court issued detailed orders regarding MMK's living arrangements, care, and financial management, emphasizing the need for collaboration between Rishab, Kumkum, and Vinay. 10. Withdrawal of Various Litigations and Complaints: The court ordered the withdrawal of various litigations and complaints, including: - Proceedings initiated by MMK for nullity of marriage with Natasha. - Criminal complaints filed by MMK against Natasha. - Petition by Natasha challenging maintenance order. - Criminal complaint by Natasha regarding transfer of shares. - SLP preferred by Natasha against an execution order. - Case filed by Rishab under the Mental Health Act. - Criminal complaints filed by Kumkum against Natasha and Rishab. The court emphasized the need to end litigation and ensure the well-being of MMK through a collaborative approach involving all parties.
|
