| DGH said it had let out the property to the three brothers "� late Parvinder Singh, Analjit Singh and Manjit Singh. Besides, it was not bound by any family settlement or any other settlement or the award as it was not a party to the so-called documents. |
| The submissions came on two different petitions "� one filed by Ranbaxy Laboratories CEO Malvinder Singh and his family seeking an order to restrain his uncle and Max India chairman Analjit Singh and Delhi Guest House Pvt Ltd (DGH) from converting the leasehold rights in the land at 15/15 A Aurangzeb Road and 1 & 2, South End Lane to freehold. |
| The other application was filed by Nimmi Singh, widow of Parvinder Singh, seeking directions to her father-in-law late Bhai Mohan Singh and her brother-in-laws Analjit and Manjit and DGH to maintain status quo with respect to the title, construction and possession of the property and not to carry on any building activity. She had also sought status quo with respect to the shareholding of DGH. |
| While asking the parties to file all documents, justice Vikramajit Sen fixed the next date of hearing on July 17. |
| While stating that the Nimmi's application was liable to be dismissed, DGH counsel AS Chandioke argued that the company was a separate legal entity and was the sole and absolute owner of the 15, Aurangazeb Road measuring 2.684 acres which includes 1 & 2, South End Lane property. |
| Besides, the company was not bound by any family settlement dated December 30, 1989 or any other settlement such as aide memoire, supplementary aide memoire and arbitrator's award as it was not a party to so-called documents, he added. |
| DGH in its reply stated that it was only carrying out the repairs and renovation work such as flooring, replastering, water-proofing, rewiring driveway, landscaping of the tennis court plot only after getting proper permission from NDMC. |
| "..no unauthorised construction or newly covered area is being created. There has been no deviation from what has been permitted by NDMC," it added. |
| According to Chandioke, nothing was being done on 1, South End Lane where Nimmi Singh and her family are staying and they had no locus standi to challenge the DGH's action in respect of property that doesn't belong to them. |
| The company also alleged that the police complaint lodged by Nimmi was false and filed with ulterior motives and the allegations of abusing and manhandling were absolutely false and concocted. |
| The court had earlier on Monday issued notice to the respondents to file replies to the petition by today. However, Analjit's counsel Nanju Ganpathy today sought more time to file his reply. |
| Senior counsel Rajiv Nayyar, appearing for Nimmi, stated that the DGH was not entitled to the execution of the deed of residuary rights in the land belonging to plaintiffs under family settlement and cannot create title by having the deed of freehold rights executed in their favour. |
| The land & development office confirmed that it had received an application alongwith all the requisite documents for conversion of land but said that the decision would be subject to an explanation which it had sought from Analjit. |
| On the other hand, Manjit's counsel Anil Airy submitted that Manjit was being affected by the dispute as he was yet to receive his 18-20 per cent share as per the family settlement. It may be noted that Manjit has already sold off his individual shareholding in DGH to Analjit. |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard