Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(j) In the past, there were proceedings by group of shareholders against Lodha under Section 247(1A) of the Companies Act. This proceeding had to be contested by Lodha. However, this company proceeding was dismissed. In this company proceeding as many as 29 companies were entangled and PDB was held to be the de facto controller of these companies by virtue of her majority shareholding of the key companies, which are mostly investment companies.
(k) During the pendency of the probate proceedings Joint Special Officers were appointed by this Court on the basis of the applications of the defendant and contesting Birla Group and such appointment was not, of course, opposed by Lodha. The Joint Special Officers made inventories of the personal properties and effects of PDB, and they found large number of valuable and antique articles, and other properties, which include ornaments, jewellery, gold coins and artifacts. These were found from the houses and residences used by PDB in four different cities viz. Allahabad, Calcutta, Delhi and Mumbai. These could neither be found nor be described in the affidavit-of-assets of Lodha.

50. In this Madras case the Division Bench approved the appointment of the Receiver during pendency of the probate proceedings to protect and preserve the property.

51. Upon careful study of the aforesaid decisions it appears to me that the principle for appointment of Administrator, pendente lite, followed by the English Courts initially in its probate division is that of the Chancery Division in case of appointment of Receiver viz. mere existence of bona fide dispute in the probate proceedings by the caveator or caveatrix is good enough and question of necessity is of no significance. But later on there is little departure from this principle, which was not, of course, ultimately followed. It took view later on that element of necessity is also required.

53. I have already observed that there is neither any ground nor guideline mentioned in the Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for such appointment. After grant of probate of the Will the executor is to remain under control by the Court to do or not to do certain things and is obliged to file accounts of administration also.

54. But there is no such corresponding provision for accountability to the Court by the executor propounder during pendency of the probate proceedings. Does it mean to say during pendency of the probate proceedings the executor will have free hand in dealing with the estate and properties left behind by the deceased? In my view it cannot be the intention of the legislature and for this purpose provision for appointment of the APL is provided for. In my opinion provision of Section 247 is enabling one and power conferred upon Court, even if no application is made, if conditions as stated above are satisfied and be exercised suomotu. In the instant case at the ad interim stage. I have already held that apart from the Indian Succession Act 1925 and Civil Procedure Code the probate Court has inherent power to take measure to protect the estate and properties of the deceased whenever Court thinks fit and proper.

62. At the earlier stage in my judgment I expressed my feeling that the human mind is very flexible. I add now to what I had expressed earlier, that at the time of appointment of the executor he might have behaved to be an excellently trustworthy and faithful person, but after death when he becomes the exclusive controller and manager of the property it is not impossible to change his mind particularly when he has beneficial interest. According to me, it is difficult, if not impossible for the executor and beneficiary particularly being a stranger and not being heir under any stretch of imagination in case of death of intestacy, to act like an executor, when he will feel that be may lose in the probate battle, having regard to serious challenge. In order to avoid this challenge rather to frustrate the challenge it is quite likely not a remote possibility, that the property may be secreted and diverted as I have already observed that the Act is silent to keep control over the executor during pendency of the probate proceedings except by appointment of APL.