Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Appellants: Shri Karamjit Jaiswal
Vs.
Respondent: Investec Trust (Jersey) Limited and Ors.
CS (OS) 892/2007 and I.A. Nos. 5790/2007, 6326/2007, 8117/2007, 8546/2007 and 4660/2010
Decided On: 14.01.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: Abhishek Singhvi and Rajeeve Mehra, Sr. Advs., Malini Sud and Deepak Khurana, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. and Priya Deep, Adv. for Defendant No. 6, Shobhit Chandra, Adv. for Defendant No. 7, Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. and Akshay Makhija, R.N. Karanjawala, Jasmine Damkewala, Saurabh Seth, Raghu, Akhil Sachar and Raghav Awasthi, Advs. for Defendant No. 9
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2--Proceedings in Jersey will be oppressive and vexatious in the sense that there is nothing, which can be gained by them over and above what may be gained in proceeding in Delhi Court--Denial of relief would prejudice the plaintiff in a similar manner, because the trustee defendants, who have no discernable interest in the properties can secure orders for its ostensible administration or preservation, and charge the estate with costs that can be crippling on it, and effectively dissipate it--Further, the plaintiff's interest in the estate will also be jeopardized since the trustee Defendants wish to use the assets of the estate of which he is a beneficiary, to cover their costs of litigation--Permanent injunctions issued against the defendants.
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The suit seeks permanent injunction, to restrain the first five Defendants (hereafter "the trustees") from inter alia dealing with the testate estate of Ladli Prasad Jaiswal (hereafter "the deceased"), of which they were trustees during his lifetime, and from initiating any legal proceeding in respect of it.; and also to restrain the eighth and ninth Defendants from supporting any such action on the part of the said trustees.
2. Briefly the facts are that the Plaintiff is son of the deceased, and the sole beneficiary of two wills, dealing with the estates of the deceased in Jersey and the British Virgin Islands. The first five Defendants were constituted as the deceased's trustees the deceased, who was a majority (51%) share holder in Jagatjit Industries Ltd (JIL) through a series of corporate holdings, and trusts. Of these, Hirgo Trading Ltd owned 1,225,000 GD Rs, representing 25,100,000 shares of JIL; that company is registered in British Virgin Islands, and administered by the first Defendant (Investec) as trustee of the deceased. Orissa Holdings Ltd held about 1,000,000 shares in JIL; 60% of its shareholding was owned directly by the deceased, and 40% was held by Tresiles Trust Ltd, a private trust owned by the deceased, and also by Theodores, a trust company owned by the deceased. 5500 GD Rs in JIL were directly held by the deceased, in addition. The sixth Defendant the executrix of the deceased's two wills; the seventh Defendant is the deceased's wife;the eighth Defendant is the son of the deceased, and the ninth Defendant claims to be the legitimate son of the deceased. This legitimacy claim is the subject matter of a suit CS(OS) No. 650 of 2006, pending before this Court.
3. There are three proceedings pending before this Court; the first being Test Case No. 22 of 2006 for the grant of the letters of administration of the deceased's estate to the Plaintiff; the second, being Test Case No. 23 of 2006 filed by the sixth Defendant for obtaining probate of the wills; the third, being a suit CS(OS) No. 650 of 2006 instituted by the Plaintiff for declaration that the deceased had only two sons-the Plaintiff and eighth Defendant, and that therefore the ninth Defendant is disentitled to a share in the deceased's estate, in the event the Court declares the wills (of the deceased) to be invalid. The three suits are pending before this Court and are at an advanced stage of recording evidence.
4. The ninth Defendant filed objections to the grant of probate pending before this Court. He objected to the jurisdiction of this Court to grant the probate. The Court, by an order dated 21.4. 2006 in the probate case, (and the petition for grant of letters of administration) restrained the parties to the Suit from dealing with the estate of the deceased. This order is still in force. By another order dated 5.10.2007 in Test Case No 23 of 2006, the court held that it had the jurisdiction to proceed with the petition seeking probate of the wills.
5. The trustees had made a Representation before the Royal Court of Jersey on 4.8.2005, during the lifetime of the deceased, seeking directions in the matter of dealing with the trust properties. Initially, the Court had through its order restrained the said first five Defendants from instituting any action with regard to the said estate. However, by its order dated 8.5.2006 the Court removed the condition (imposed earlier) on the trustee Defendants of not initiating any proceedings with regard to the estate of the deceased.
6. The ninth Defendant had made a representation before the Royal Court of Jersey challenging the validity of the wills. In that case, the Plaintiff had filed objections on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Royal Court of Jersey. The Jersey Court, by its order dated 13.2.2007 ruled that this Court was the appropriate and convenient court to adjudicate matters with respect to the deceased's wills. However, since the ninth Defendant had informed t
