SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
VLS Commodities P. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sadhna Mehrotra - Respondent
CM(M) 614 of 2021 & CM No. 31002 of 2021(for stay)
Decided On : 25-11-2021




Succession proceedings are summary and cannot decide complex legal issues, therefore applications for impleadment by non-parties can be dismissed as an abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 387 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 25 - The petitioner Company sought impleadment in succession proceedings related to a deceased director and shareholder but was dismissed for being an abuse of process of law and for failing to establish the relevance of their claims. The Succession Court's decisions are upheld as the objections and cross-examination requests were deemed unnecessary and unsubstantiated given the summary nature of succession proceedings. (Paras 4, 5, 18, 21)

(B) Succession Proceedings - Nature and Scope - Succession proceedings are summary in nature, which limits the adjudication of intricate legal and factual questions. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner Company sought to be included in the succession proceedings following the death of its director, which it argued was necessary to protect its commercial interests as a creditor to the deceased, intercepting current claims in the succession process. (Paras 3.1, 3.2)

Findings of Court:
The succession proceedings were deemed summary and unable to address complex disputes, thus the refusals to allow impleadment and cross-examination were appropriate. (Paras 11, 21)

Issues: The main issues addressed were the propriety of allowing the petitioner Company’s claims and whether it had the right to cross-examine the respondents within the given succession proceedings context. (Paras 4, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Succession Court properly deemed the application to be an abuse of process, reaffirming the summary nature of succession proceedings which cannot address complex disputed facts and issues, allowing the dismissal without further ado. (Paras 10, 21)

Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the petitioner Company.

Table of Content
1. background on succession petition and company status (Para 1 , 3)
2. reasons for dismissal of application and objections (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments regarding rights to cross-examine (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court's analysis on procedural validity and rights (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. legal standards for succession certificates (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. implications of not granting succession certificates (Para 19 , 20)
7. final order and costs imposed (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns two orders dated 27th March, 2021 passed by the Administrative Civil Judge, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi in Succ. Court No.1554/16, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner Company, inter alia, seeking impleadment in the succession proceedings and permitting the petitioner Company to cross-examine the respondent no.1, PW-1 in the succession proceedings, has been dismissed. Furthermore, the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner Company have also been dismissed.

2. Submissions of the parties were heard on 13th September, 2021 and on 17th November, 2021, when the judgment was reserved.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are set out below:

3.1. Late Sh. Somesh Mehrotra was a director and shareholder in the petitioner Company. He expired on 22nd August, 2015.

3.2. A suit bearing CS(OS) No.65/2018 was filed by the petitioner Company seeking recovery of Rs.1,50,00,000/- along with interest from the estate of late Sh. Somesh Mehrotra, which is pending before this Court.

3.3. The Succession Petition from which the present petition arises was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2, being the wife and the daughter of late Sh. Somesh Mehrotra respectively on 3rd October, 2015.

3.4. The respondents No.3, 4 and 5 being the father, brother and sister of late Sh. Somesh Mehrotra respectively, were impleaded as respondents in the said Succession Petition.

3.5. The petitioner Company filed an application for impleadment in the Succession Petition, which was dismissed by the Succession Court vide order dated 15th September, 2020.

3.6. The said order was challenged before this Court and this Court vide order dated 24th November, 2020 in CM(M) No.559/2020 gave permission to the petitioner Company to file its objections in the succession proceedings.

3.7. Accordingly, the petitioner Company filed its objections on 18th December, 2020 and also filed an application seeking impleadment in the Succession Petition and sought permission to cross-examine PW-1 and direction to the respondent No.2 to enter appearance in her individual and independent capacity and to file her independent and separate affidavit of evidence.

3.8. The said application and the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner Company were dismissed by the Succession Court vide orders dated 27th March, 2021. Hence, this petition.

4. The application for impleadment filed by the petitioner Company was dismissed by the Succession Court vide the impugned order reasoning/observing that, (i) the application was an abuse of process of law as on an earlier occasion, vide order dated 15th September, 2020, a similar application had already been rejected by the Succession Court; (ii) this Court vide order 24th November, 2020 did not allow the impleadment of the petitioner Company, but only allowed the petitioner Company to file its objections; (iii) there was no question of allowing cross-examination of the respondents No.1 and 2 by the petitioner Company; and (iv) if any direction was to be given in respect of the respondent No.2, being the daughter of late Sh. Somesh Mehrotra and who had become a major during the pendency of the succession proceedings, the same was between the Court and the said respondent No.2 and no application in this regard could be made by the petitioner Company. With the aforesaid observations, the application filed on behalf of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top