High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
Rajendra Singh Lodha & Another
Versus
Ajoy Kumar Newar & Others
G.A. No. 3732 of 2008, G.A. No. 3714 of 2008, G.A. No. 3718 of 2008, PLA No. 242 of 2004, G.A. No. 3731 of 2008 & T.S. No. 6 of 2004
Decided On : 27-08-2010
ADMINISTRATOR - APPOINTMENT - PENDENTE LITE - POWER AND DUTIES - SHAREHOLDINGS - VOTING RIGHTS - APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS - REMUNERATION - ESTATE - ADMINISTRATION - SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, SECTIONS 211, 247 - INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, SECTION 108(1) - ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY.
Fact of the Case:
The sole executor of the will of Priyambada Devi Birla, R.S. Lodha, died intestate, leaving no one to take control of the estate. Two applications were filed, one by the executors of the 1982 will and the other by the heirs and legal representatives of R.S. Lodha, seeking the appointment of an administrator pendente lite (APL) and a receiver. The court had to decide on the appointment of APL, the extent of their powers and duties, and whether they could exercise voting rights in respect of the shares held by the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that: - It is necessary to appoint an APL to protect and preserve the estate of the deceased. - The APL should be appointed with all the rights and powers of a general administrator under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, except the right of distribution of the estate. - The APL can take possession of the share scripts of the companies held by the deceased and exercise all rights and discharge obligations arising from the shareholding, including the right to vote at meetings of the companies. - The APL should submit a report to the court before exercising voting rights for the purpose of appointing any director or reconstituting the board of directors of the companies.
Issues: 1. Whether it is necessary to appoint an APL to protect and preserve the estate of the deceased? 2. To what extent should the APL be appointed? 3. Can the APL exercise voting rights in respect of the shares held by the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it is necessary to appoint an APL to protect and preserve the estate of the deceased, as there is no one else to take control of the estate. 2. The court held that the APL should be appointed with all the rights and powers of a general administrator under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, except the right of distribution of the estate. 3. The court held that the APL can exercise voting rights in respect of the shares held by the deceased, as this is one of the rights attached to shareholding.
Final Decision: The court appointed three joint administrators pendente lite, with specific powers and duties, including the power to exercise voting rights in respect of the shares held by the deceased. The court also directed the administrators to submit a report to the court before exercising voting rights for the purpose of appointing any director or reconstituting the board of directors of the companies.
K.J. Sengupta, J.
Aforesaid two applications being G.A. 3714 of 2008 and G.A. 3718 of 2008 have been filed in connection with PLA No. 242 of 2004. The first one has been filed by one G.P. Birla and one Pradip Kumar Khaitan in the capacity of the executors of the testamentary document said to be last Will of Priyambada Devi Birla executed in 1982 and the second one has been filed by one Debendra Kumar Mantri and one Smt. Radha Devi Mohata.
In G.A. 3714 of 2008 the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) The petitioner herein being the executors of the Will of Priyambada Devi Birla dated 13th July 1982 be authorized to take possession or capacity of the estate and to act as such executors in accordance with the law,
(b) An Administrator Pendente lite and/or Receiver be appointed to take over possession of all movable and immovable assets and properties of the deceased.
In G.A. 3718 of 2008 the following interlocutory reliefs are claimed
(a) An Administrator Pendente lite and/or Receiver be appointed to take over possession of all movable and immovable assets and properties of Priyambada Devi Birla, the deceased above named including the shareholding of those companies as specified in the schedule Annexure marked ‘B’ by substituting his name in stead and place of the deceased abovenamed R.S. Lodha wherever his name appears in place of the deceased above named.
(b) Such Administrator Pendente lite and/or Receiver be directed to take all decisions and exercise all rights in regard to shareholdings of Priyambada Devi Birla in the Companies referred to in Annexure ‘C’.
Both the aforesaid first mentioned two applications were filed on or about 20th November 2008.
The aforesaid two applications were made at a point of time when sole executor R.S. Lodha in connection with the testamentary instrument of 1999 died and there was no person to take control and possession of the estate left behind by the Priyambada Devi Birla, since deceased (hereinafter referred to the said deceased). The said applications were being heard and in course of hearing one Harsh Vardhan Lodha, Aditya Vikram Lodha, Sushila Devi Lodha, Meenakshi Periwal made aforesaid application G.A. No. 3731 of 2008 in connection with said Testamentary Suit No.6 of 2004. They are claiming themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of one R.S. Lodha who died intestate, prayed for following reliefs:-
(a) The petitioner No.1, Harsh Vardhan Lodha, be a specifically authorized/empowered to carry out, discharge the following acts and functions relating to the estate of Priyambada Devi Birla as Administrator Pendente lite thereof.
(i) Operation of bank accounts pertaining to an estate of late Priyambada Devi Birla including the Bank Account No:0100002100579690 opened by late Rajendra Singh Lodha in Punjab National Bank, Brabourne Road Branch, Kolkata,
(ii) Collection of dividend and all other incomes of the estate of late Priyambada Devi Birla and deposit of the same in the said account No.0100002100579690,
(iii) Submission of Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns pertaining to estate of late Priyambada Devi Birla during pendency of the above T.S.No.6 of 2004,
(iv) Submission of account to the estate of late Priyambada Devi Birla in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 11th October 2007.
All the aforesaid three applications were opposed by the respective parties by filing affidavit opposing mutual prayers of the respective parties. It appears to me that all the respective persons are not opposing to appointment of Administrator Pendente Lite in respect of the estate left behind by the said deceased. The applicants in the first two mentioned applications are praying for appointment of Receiver in connection with and on the strength of the first testamentary instrument of 1982 left behind by the same person, while the third mentioned application has been filed for appointment of one of the applicants, Harsh Vardhan Lodha (hereina
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.