Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sorab Maneckshaw Javeri vs Jal Rattanji Patel @ Jal Ruttonji Patel @ ... on 19 January, 2021

Author: G. S. Patel

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                                17-IAL-7057-2020 IN TP-172-2019.DOCX




                   Shephali



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
                              INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7057 OF 2020
                                                           IN
                               TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 172 OF 2019


                    Sorab M Javeri                                                     ...Petitioner
                           Versus
                    Jal Rattanji Patel                                               ...Respondent


                    Mr Karl Tamboly, with Ms Sheetal Shah & Yazad Udwadia, i/b
                         Mehta & Girdharilal, for the Petitioner.
                    Mr Ieshan Sinha, with Aayesh Gandhi, i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co, for
                         Respondent No. 1.


                                               CORAM:           G.S. PATEL, J.
                                               DATED:           19th January 2021
                    PC:-


1. The prayers in the Interim Application read thus: Shephali Mormare

(a) that the Respondent No.1 be directed to issue Digitally signed by Shephali Mormare Duplicate Share Certifcate in favour of the Petitioner in Date: 2021.01.20 10:49:46 +0530 respect of 36,000 shares standing in the name of deceased Dr. Jal Rattanji Patel alias Jal R. Patil under folio no. CIP0000007.

(b) that the Respondent N.3 be directed to process the Application as made to it and transfer the unclaimed Dividend/s lying with it in respect of 36,000 shares standing in the name of deceased Dr. Jal Rattanji Patel alias Page 1 of 5 19th January 2021 17-IAL-7057-2020 IN TP-172-2019.DOCX Jal Ruttonji Patel alias Dr. Jal R. Patel alias Dr. J. R. Patel under folio no. CIP 0000007 to the Petitioner;

(c) pending the hearing and fnal disposal of this Application, Respondent No.3 be directed to disclose on oath the amount of unclaimed Dividend/s lying with it in respect of 36,0000 shares standing in the name of deceased Dr. Jal Rattanji Patel alias Jal Ruttonji Patel alias Dr. Jal R. Patel alias Dr. J. R. Patel under folio no. CIP0000007."

2. The Respondents, (1) Cipla Limited, a public limited and traded company; (2) Karvy Fintech Pvt Ltd, which is an RTA, an agency for efecting registrations and transfers of shares; (3) the Investor Education & Protection Fund Authority through its Nodal Officer ("fiIEPF"), which runs a Government-mandated Investor Protection Fund.

3. The Applicant is the Petitioner seeking Letters of Administration (de bonis non) to the property and credits of one Dr Jal Rattanji Patel. The deceased held 36,000 shares of Cipla Ltd. He died unmarried and was survived by his brother and sister. These two siblings themselves died in 1983 and 1982 respectively and were survived by, respectively, the widow and daughter, and son and a daughter. The present Petitioner is the son of the deceased sister of the original deceased, i.e. the nephew of the deceased. The Petition was fled on 14th December 2018. The schedule to the Petition included these 36,000 shares of Cipla Ltd.

4. Letters of Administration were granted on 24th July 2019. The Grant also showed these 36,000 shares of Cipla.

5. There was correspondence between 12th October 2019 and 3rd October 2020, by which the Petitioner, in correspondence to Page 2 of 5 19th January 2021 17-IAL-7057-2020 IN TP-172-2019.DOCX Cipla and Karvy, sought a transmission of these 36,000 shares. The Petitioner was faced with a number of requisitions. It seems that ultimately the shares came to be moved to the 3rd Respondent IEPF. The necessary transmission was not done. The Petitioner in fact had to fle a complaint with SEII.

6. IEPF was of the view that since the Letters of Administration did not expressly extend to the shares and dividends, therefore, the transmission could not be done. Alternatively, the IEPF sought a Succession Certifcate.

7. To begin with, this approach is entirely wrong. There is no law that a Succession Certifcate stands on some higher pedestal than Letters of Administration. Ioth are granted by this Court. It is not for the IEPF or its Nodal Officer to decide which form of the representation to an estate is necessary. The view of the Nodal Officer is of complete and monumental irrelevance. Once there is a Grant issued by this Court, it is an order of the Court that operates in rem against the world at large and the IEPF is equally bound by it.

8. I am making it clear that further attempts by the IEPF in any matter, this or any other, to refuse to acknowledge grants issued by the Court will be construed as an act of contempt and interference with the administration of justice and will be dealt with accordingly. I trust my meaning is now abundantly clear. The objection by IEPF is entirely without substance and has no basis or warrant in law.

9. In any case, the Petitioner was then asked even to submit further documents including a rectifed Indemnity Iond as if to suggest that these rectifcations or Indemnity Ionds can somehow override Grants issued by the Court.

Page 3 of 5

19th January 2021 17-IAL-7057-2020 IN TP-172-2019.DOCX

10. There is no doubt that the Grant has been issued and has not been set aside. There is also no doubt that in the original Petition to this Court, and in the Grant that followed, these 36,000 shares were included and shown with all necessary particulars, including Folio No. CIP0000007.

11. None of the Respondents are entitled to oppose this Petition. They have no interest of their own in the estate of the deceased. The Respondents will submit to all themselves to order of this Court.

12. The Interim Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) as quoted above.

13. As regards prayer clause (c), I expect an Affidavit in Reply to be fled and served by Respondent No. 3, IEPF, by 29th January 2021 disclosing the entire amount of unclaimed dividend. There will be no extension of time under any circumstances whatsoever. Failure to comply will invite an action compelling compliance. The 3rd Respondent will act upon being served with an authenticated copy of this order.

14. For the present, the Petition will be listed for compliance on 1st February 2021.

15. An Affidavit of Service on the Respondents is taken on record.

16. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.

Page 4 of 5

19th January 2021 17-IAL-7057-2020 IN TP-172-2019.DOCX (G. S. PATEL, J) Page 5 of 5 19th January 2021