 "Supreme Court, Benami Act")
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a plea which alleged that ex-IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi made some scurrilous" remarks in his social media post against former Attorney General and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala was told by senior advocate Kapil Sibal that Modi has made scurrilous allegations against Rohatgi without any basis.
Give us the paper book. We will keep the IA (interim application) on board before an appropriate bench next Friday, the bench said.
The ex-IPL commissioner, in his Instagram post, had made some comments about Rohatgi. Later, though another post, he reportedly apologised to the senior advocate.
Earlier, the top court on August 1, last year, had appointed former apex court judge Justice R V Raveendran as a mediator to settle the family property dispute involving the former IPL head and his mother Bina Modi.
Senior advocate Rohatgi is one of the counsels representing Bina Modi in the vexatious property dispute.
More From This Section
Prior to this, Lalit Modi and his mother had told the bench that the apex court-mandated mediation to resolve a long pending property dispute in the family had failed.
The top court is seized of Lalit Modi's appeal against the judgement of a division bench of the Delhi High Court that anti-arbitration injunction lawsuit filed by Bina Modi, wife of late industrialist K K Modi, against her son is maintainable.
A lawsuit was earlier filed by Bina Modi in the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain the arbitration proceedings initiated by Lalit Modi in Singapore over the dispute.
In December 2020, the division bench of the high court held that it has the jurisdiction to decide Bina Modi's plea challenging Lalit Modi's move to initiate arbitration proceedings in Singapore.
The division bench had set aside the judgement of a single judge of the high court, which had said it does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the anti-arbitration injunction suits filed by Lalit Modi's mother Bina, his sister Charu and brother Samir and they are open to taking such pleas before the arbitral tribunal in Singapore.
The single judge had said an anti-arbitration injunction suit does not lie, so the pleas are not maintainable, and dismissed the matter.
Bina, Charu, and Samir, in two separate suits, contended that there was a trust deed between the family members and the K K Modi family trust matters cannot be settled through arbitration in a foreign country according to Indian laws.
They have sought a permanent injunction restraining Lalit Modi from prosecuting or continuing with the application for emergency measures and any arbitration proceedings against them in Singapore.
The division bench, in its judgement passed on December 24, 2020, had said the subject dispute ought to have been prime facie adjudicated by a single judge, who had to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the court as all the parties are Indian citizens and situs' of immovable assets of the trust is in India.
The division bench had remanded two civil suits to the single judge for further proceedings, in accordance with the law, from the stage of issuance of summons and directed the registry to list them for hearing.
According to the case, the trust deed was executed in London by K K Modi as settlor/managing trustee and Bina, Lalit, Charu, and Samir as trustees, and in pursuance of an oral family, the settlement was recorded between them on February 10, 2006.
K K Modi died on November 2, 2019, after which the dispute emerged amongst the trustees.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
