2017 (2) TMI 1520 - HC - Companies Law

Refusal to grant an ad-interim relief in respect of share components of the property owned by the deceased - third party rights would be created in respect of the flat or not - HELD THAT - The learned Single Judge took into consideration the various facts and circumstances, which had taken place after the demise of Dr. Desai and came to a conclusion that at this stage the question of granting an ad-interim relief in respect of shares does not arise, and kept the matter for final disposal, and a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction has been decided in favour of the Appellants herein. Issue regarding the shares - HELD THAT - It is directed that value of the shares as on the date of demise of Dr. Desai should be protected and the plaintiffs/Appellants would be entitled to get shares valued, not less than their value as on the date of death. In the event, the Appellants succeed, they would be entitled to get the said valuation and/or other reliefs, which are claimed by the them in the suit and in the motion. Hearing of the motion is expedited. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ad-interim relief for share components of property owned by deceased Dr. Desai.
2. Interpretation of Dr. Desai's will regarding distribution of shares.
3. Protection of share value as on the date of Dr. Desai's demise.
4. Jurisdictional issue regarding the shares.
5. Disposal of the appeal and related Notice of Motion.

Analysis:

1. The Appellants challenged the order denying ad-interim relief for the share components of the property owned by Dr. Desai, who passed away leaving a will that allocated 75% of shares to a trust and 25% to relatives. A probate petition was filed post his demise, seeking to prevent third-party rights over the assets. The Single Judge considered post-death events and deferred a decision on the shares, ruling in favor of the Appellants on a preliminary jurisdictional issue.

2. The will of Dr. Desai, a doctor who established a charitable trust, specified the distribution of his assets, including a flat in Mumbai, lands in Gujarat, and shares in a company. The will was amended in 2014. The Respondents assured no third-party rights over the Mumbai flat and Gujarat lands. However, the Single Judge deferred a decision on the shares, emphasizing the need to protect the share value as of Dr. Desai's demise, ensuring the Appellants receive not less than the shares' value at that time.

3. The High Court directed that the value of Dr. Desai's shares as of his demise be safeguarded, with the Plaintiffs entitled to the valuation not less than the shares' value at the time of death. If successful, the Plaintiffs could claim the valuation and other reliefs sought. The hearing of the motion was expedited, and the appeal was disposed of with all contentions left open for further action by the Appellants.

4. The Court emphasized protecting the share value as of Dr. Desai's demise, ensuring the Plaintiffs receive a valuation not less than that date. The decision allowed the Plaintiffs to pursue other reliefs claimed in the suit and motion. The disposal of the appeal led to the related Notice of Motion being resolved, bringing the matter to a conclusion.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the interpretation of Dr. Desai's will, the protection of share values, jurisdictional matters, and the final disposal of the appeal and related motion.