Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 694
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, J.
Sonali Nimish Arora – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Gopal Raheja & Others – Defendant
Chamber Summons No. 708 of 2014 In Suit No. 2363 of 2012
Decided On : 30-04-2015
For the Applicant:Rohit Kapadia, Senior Advocate, with Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate, Chirag Mody, Aditya Mehta, Terressa Daulat, Meghna Talwar, Divya Shah, Saket Bhatad, i/b M/s. Divya Shah & Associates, Advocates.
For the Defendants:D1, D.J. Khambata, Senior Advocate with Zubin Behramkamdin, i/b Vivek Vashi, D2, S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate, with Loshika Bulchandani, D5, Pankaj Parsurampuria, Advocates.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of the phrase 'sufficient cause' in the context of condonation of delay, emphasizing the need to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction is imputable to a party.
Headnote:
Chamber Summons - Application for Substitution - Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 9A of the CPC - Indian Succession Act - Testamentary Petition - Joint Executors - Abatement - Delay Condonation
Fact of the Case:
The Chamber Summons involves an application for substitution filed by Sonali Arora in a suit initiated by her late father, Gopal L. Raheja. The application seeks to condone a delay of 32 days, set aside the abatement of the suit, and allow the transposition of Sonali as the Plaintiff in place of her deceased father. The suit is part of a series of interlinked disputes within the Raheja family, involving claims to substantial assets and properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Sonali, as one of Gopal Raheja's legal representatives, is entitled to continue the suit initiated by her father, as well as her own suit. The court rejected the arguments that the Chamber Summons was not maintainable and that Sonali's delay in filing the application was unjustified. The court held that the delay was explicable and should be condoned. The court also emphasized the need to advance substantial justice and rejected attempts to obstruct the course of justice.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the maintainability of the application for substitution, the delay condonation, and the rights of the legal representatives to continue the suit initiated by Gopal Raheja.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order XXII of the CPC, the Indian Succession Act, and relevant case law. The court emphasized the liberal approach to considering applications for condonation of delay and the need to advance substantial justice. The court also highlighted the principle that no person can be forced to act as an executor against their will.
Final Decision: The Chamber Summons was made absolute, allowing Sonali to be substituted as the Plaintiff in the suit initiated by her late father. The court also allowed the amendment of the Chamber Summons and directed that no further applications related to the Chamber Summons or the order be made before the Vacation Judges.
1. There is before me a Chamber Summons filed by the original Defendant No. 6, Sonali Arora (“Sonali”), in Suit No. 2363 of 2012 filed by her late father, Gopal L. Raheja. The prayers in this Chamber Summons are firstly to condone a delay of 32 days in filing this Chamber Summons; secondly, to set aside the abatement, if any, of the suit itself; and thirdly, to allow the transposition of Defendant No. 6 as the Plaintiff in place of the original Plaintiff who has passed away.
2. There are actually a very large number of suits and applications that are interlinked, although I am at this stage concerned in this judgment only with this Chamber Summons. In order to better understand the spectrum of disputes, before dealing with the rival contentions in this Chamber Summons, it is perhaps useful to outline at the broadest level these competing actions. The disputes are all within the Raheja family. This is a prominent presence in India’s construction and real estate sector. The patriarch of this group was Gopal Raheja. He died on 18th March 2014 after a very long and difficult illness. Gopal Raheja was survived by his three children: Sandeep, his son, and his two daughters Sonali Arora and Sabita Narang. In the main suits, Gopal Raheja, Sonali and Sabita are among those arrayed against Sandeep. To cut a very long story short, Gopal Raheja first brought Suit No. 2363 of 2012 claiming that substantial assets were actually placed in Sandeep’s name only for convenience, and that Gopal Raheja continued to be their beneficial owner. He claimed that there was a family arrangement that give him plenary control over the disposition of these assets, and that he had in fact made a distribution on 1st June 2012, of which he sought enforcement. Sandeep has himself filed no suit. In response to Gopal Raheja’s suit, he claimed that there was no arrangement of the kind or at the time Gopal Raheja suggested but instead that there was a wholly different family arrangement by which these assets were transferred to Sandeep absolutely. The real opposition to that suit was from Sandeep.
3. While Sabita does oppose Sandeep’s case, she does not entirely support her father’s. Instead, she claimed that there was at some earlier point in time, around 1995-1996, a separation amongst the members of the previous generation of the Raheja family, i.e., between Gopal Raheja and his own siblings; and on that separation Gopal Raheja and his three children each took an equal undivided 1/4th share in the assets and property that are the subject matter of Gopal Raheja’s 2012 suit.
4. Gopal Raheja filed a Notice of Motion for interim reliefs. At the time of that Notice of Motion an application was made for framing issues under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These are pending determination. Gopal Raheja died on 18th March 2014, just a few days before his cross-examination on those issues was scheduled to start. Sandeep now claims that the cause of action in Gopal Raheja’s suit was personal to him and did not survive his death. He says that Gopal Raheja’s suit has abated.
5. In the meantime, Sonali has filed Suit No. 103 of 2015 in her own name. Sabita too has filed her own suit, Suit No. 777 of 2014. In both sisters’ suits, there are pending Notices of Motion. There is also one pending perjury Notice of Motion filed by Sandeep, and in each of the two sisters’ suits preliminary issues have been framed under Section 9A of the CPC and are pending. Thus, there are three suits, several Notices of Motion and in each of the three suits, preliminary issues under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 still awaiting determination.
6. The present Chamber Summons did not at first have a prayer for setting aside the abatement. An objection was taken. Sonali filed Chamber Summons No. 394 of 2015 in the present Chamber Summons seeking to amend this Chamber Summons to include a prayer for setting aside the abatement. I allowed that Chamber Summons for a
