The Bombay HC refused to grant interim relief to Dr. Vijaypat Singhania’s grandchildren
Mr. Singhania
On last Friday, Bombay High Court refused to grant a interim relief for the grandchildren’s of Dr Vijaypat Singhania and we all know that they were the one against whom HC has issued the instructions to not to deal with their any property including the Family Settlement of 1998, as Madhupati Singhania is estranged son of Dr. Vijaypat Singhania.
In due course of time, grandchildren’s of Dr. Vijaypat Singhania will have to come up for hearing as Justice Gautam Patel refused to grant any kind of interim relief for them. All the petitioners; Rasaalika (26), Raivathari (18), Tarini (20) and Ananya (29) are the children of Dr. Vijaypat Singhania’s elder son Madhupati, who had left the Mumbai family home before 17 years with his wife Anuradha to get settled in Singapore and later Dr. Vijaypat make him estranged son. In February 2015, Madhupati’s children filed suit with a claim that they also share the family properties.
However; grandchildren had sought directions to stop any further transactions the assets of Dr. Vijaypat, which is worth of Rs 1,000 crore. It also include the assets, which were listed in the Family Settlement on 1998 and also the 2 lakh shares of their flagship company Raymonds Ltd, which was on the name of Madhupati and he also share 1/4th share in JK Bankers, the parent company which was responsible for the success of entire business, whereas; few additional assets were listed on the name of grandchildren’s. All the four grandchildren’s argued in their suit that as per the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father cannot deal any property which is on the name of minor kids without getting permission from court. But Dr. Vijaypat’s counsel opposed the claim on the basic ground where they stated that if property is from joint family, so there is no need to get court order to deal with the undivided property. The more he added that all four grandchildren’s had sought to challenge the outcome of a document without offering to surrender the profit of benefits which they have received under that document. However; we cannot forget that there is delay of more than 11 years in filling the case which means it is time-barred.
The counsel, which was appearing for the flagship company Raymonds Ltd. stated that our company name was dragged in to the issue to get additional benefit, whereas; our company is neither a party nor privy to the execution of the final settlement.
