'Assets were earmarked for Birlas, not charity'

Lawyers acting on behalf of Shiv Nath Prasad, co-accused with R S Lodha in a criminal case, today told the Calcutta High Court that bequests in favour of charity was clearly not Priyamvada Birla's sole wish as 90 per cent of the nominations and shares held by her, including those in the Birla holding firm Pilani Investments, were assigned to Birla family members.

Arguing on behalf of Prasad, and by default R S Lodha, in the criminal case filed by the Birla family, the lawyers pointed out that the documents filed by the Birla family in the criminal case contained the nominations made by Priyamvada Birla.

The Birla documents also stated that jewellery and ornaments were assigned to the three daughters of K K Birla.

The Birla Park residence was assigned to Nandini Nopany while the house on Aurangzeb Road in Delhi was assigned to Shobhana Bhartia and the one in Mumbai on Mount Pleasant Road to Jyotsna Poddar.

The shares of India Smelting and Pilani Investments, which held shares in several of the key Birla group companies including the Aditya Birla group, were assigned to G P Birla and C K Birla. Shares of Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills were assigned to S K Birla.

However, on April 15, 1999, Priyamvada Birla revoked all the trusts that she created along with M P Birla and all the assets and liabilities of M P Birla estate were transferred solely on her and she was the only beneficiary, which was the main ground on which the criminal case was filed.

Pradip Ghosh, Joymalya Bagchi and Debanjan Mondal were the counsels for Shiv Nath Prasad, who sought quashing of the criminal proceeding.

Ghosh's main arguments were based on the fact that the trust deed annexed brought to light that the trust by itself was revocable and so the allegation that it was irrevocable was baseless.

Earlier, on December 8, following the petition of Prasad, Calcutta High Court had stayed the criminal proceeding till December 16 and fixed the case for hearing on December 14.

In support of the submission, the counsel said that R P Pansari, the so called complainant, was set up by the Birlas to put an embargo in the proceeding relating to the grant of probate made by Lodha, pending in the high court for adjudication.

Ram Jethmalani, counsel for R P Pansari, had no opportunity today to argue in the matter.

The Prasad-Lodha counsel argued that Pansari had no locus standi to initiate proceeding as he was in no way connected with the assets, properties or will of Priyamvada Birla.

The counsel disputed the statement of the complainant that the assets and properties of M P Birla estate was already vested as a public charity through the trusts.

It was argued by the counsel that this submission had no basis because the trusts had already been revoked by Priyamvada Birla so she had every right to make her last will.

The counsel for the Prasad-Lodha side will continue his argument on December 15.