Birla-Lodha criminal case hearing ends

Rajendra Singh Lodha's counsel, Shanti Bhushan today turned the criminal case against complainant, R P Pansari.

Replying to Ram Jethmalani (counsel for Pansari), Shanti Bushan laid down a chronology of events involving Pansari and indicted him with the same charges that were framed against the accused.

On September 10, 1990, after the death of M P Birla, Priyamvada Birla made nominations for the five private trusts created in 1988.

According to the nominations, the shares of East India Investments in M P Birla's name were to be vested in Hindustan Medical Institute (HMI).

However, on September 12, Priyamvada wrote a letter to the board of East India Investments asking for the shares to be transferred in her name.

The resolution was ratified by the board on September 17 and the shares transferred on September 19. The role of Pansari in the events was three fold. Pansari was an attesting witness to the nomination of the trusts, he was the secretary of HMI and also the director of East India Investments.

Ram Jethmalani, in his arguments hinted yesterday, if Priyamvada Birla revoked the trusts, which the Birla family was irrevocable, then she was also party to the breach of trust.

Shanti Bhushan's argument today was based on the premise that if Priyamvada Birla could be charged for breach of trust then the same charges could be levelled against Pansari. An affidavit was filed by Lodha's counsel, which dealt with the involvement of Pansari.

Earlier, Jethmalani, in his closing arguments said, that the trusts were charitable trusts in terms of the provisions of the Trust Act.

He argued before the court that a Trust can only be revoked if there is such a clause and it is substantiated by law. Even if there was a power of revocation, the same will be ineffective and useless when applied to this case.

Civil case order

Justice K J Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court today asked Anindya Mitra, counsel for Rajendra Singh Lodha, to take instruction from Lodha whether the personal belongings of late Priyamvada Birla were lying at the Kolkata, New Delhi, Mumbai & Allahabad houses within March 11 and give report to the court.

After receiving the report from Mitra, the court will consider the question of appointment of receiver for the purpose of making inventory of the personal belongings of Priyamvada Birla.

Two sisters of M P Birla made the petition asking the court to appoint a Receiver on the ground that Lodha in his petition for probate have not disclosed all belongings of late Priyamvada Birla.

The counsel for Lodha said that the petitioners also have not disclosed those items in their affidavits. After hearing two counsel, Justice Sengupta adjourned the case till March 11.