Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. J. SENGUPTA, J.
Smt. Priyambada Devi Birla, Rajendra Singh Lodha - Appellant
Versus
Ajoy Kumar Newar - Respondent
G.A. No. 3732 of 2008
Decided on : Aug 27, 2010
APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR PENDENTE LITE - ESTATE OF DECEASED - SUIT FOR PROBATE - ISSUES - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
Upon the death of R.S. Lodha, the sole executor appointed by the last Will of 1999, there was a necessity for the appointment of an Administrator Pendente Lite (APL) to protect and preserve the estate of Priyambada Devi Birla (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased).
Finding of the Court:
1. The Court held that the appointment of APL is necessary to protect and preserve the estate of the deceased. 2. The Court held that APL can be appointed over the entire estate of the deceased including the controlling block of shares held by the deceased in the M.P. Birla Group of Companies. 3. The Court held that APL has all the rights and powers of a general administrator other than the right of distribution of the estate. 4. The Court held that APL is subject to the immediate control and direction of the Court. 5. The Court held that APL can exercise all the rights and discharge all obligations arising from the shareholding, including the right to vote at meetings of the companies.
Issues: 1. Whether it is necessary to appoint an Administrator Pendente Lite (APL) to protect and preserve the estate of the deceased. 2. Whether APL can be appointed over the entire estate of the deceased including the controlling block of shares held by the deceased in the M.P. Birla Group of Companies. 3. Whether APL has all the rights and powers of a general administrator other than the right of distribution of the estate. 4. Whether APL is subject to the immediate control and direction of the Court. 5. Whether APL can exercise all the rights and discharge all obligations arising from the shareholding, including the right to vote at meetings of the companies.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to appoint APL is conferred upon the Court under section 247 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. APL has all the rights and powers of a general administrator other than the right of distribution of the estate. 3. APL is subject to the immediate control and direction of the Court. 4. APL can exercise all the rights and discharge all obligations arising from the shareholding, including the right to vote at meetings of the companies.
Final Decision: The Court appointed three Joint Administrators pendente lite to take possession of the estate of the deceased and to administer the same in accordance with the law. The Joint Administrators were directed to submit an inventory of the estate within four weeks and to submit accounts of receipts and outgoing every three months to the Court.
K.J. Sengupta, J.
1. THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by -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.
2. 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 authorised 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 abovenamed.
(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
3. BOTH the aforesaid first mentioned two applications were filed on or about 20th November 2008.
4. THE aforesaid two applications were made at a point of time when 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 authorised/ 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 Administration 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 applic
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
