The Birlas received their second blow in less than a month as Calcutta High Court refused to appoint an administrator for the estate of Priyamvada Birla, on applications filed by the sisters of M P Birla and some of the Birla family members. |
While refusing to appoint an administrator, at this stage, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta today passed an interim order restraining Rajendra Singh Lodha from selling any movable or immovable properties of late Priyamvada Birla, including shares and bonds. |
|
Debanjan Mandal, solicitor of Lodha, said Lodha could acquire shares as the Judge passed an order directing preservation of the estate of Priyamvada Birla, including any share that might come in the hands of Lodha, in future. |
|
He said, the Judge was pleased to record the statement on behalf of the counsel of Lodha that the assets of late Priyamvada Birla shall be preserved and protected. |
|
Further, the court refused to pass an order of status quo in respect of appointment of directors of the companies under the M P Birla group, as the directors would not be able to work independently. |
|
The order said, if there is any change in the board of directors, seven days notice would have to be served to the petitioners. |
|
Four weeks' time has been given to the respondents for filing his affidavit in the application for administrator. |
|
Today's order comes close on the heels of the order passed in the discharge of caveat petition, when Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta discharged caveatable interest of three of the Birla family members""B K Birla, K K Birla and Yash Birla""while maintaining Lodha's caveatable interest. |
|
The court, however, recognised the right of G P Birla's caveatable interest on grounds that he was one of the executors of late Priyamvada Birla's mutual will of 1982. |
|
Birla family lawyer N G Khaitan said his clients would take a decision on going for an appeal in the discharge petition case, after going through the order. |
|
He however ruled out an appeal in today's order and said that he was fully satisfied. |
|
Khaitan said, the court observed that there was no abuse of process of the court by the petitioners as alleged by Lodhas. |
|
|
|