Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Friday, Sep 17, 2004
Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Friday, Sep 17, 2004 |
||
|
|
||
|
Home Page
-
Corporate Disputes Corporate - Corporate Disputes Priyamvada Birla will case — It's a tussle between public charity and personal gain: Counsel Our Bureau
Mr Arun Jaitley
Kolkata , Sept. 16 THE legal tussle over the will of the late Priyamvada Birla reached its second stage at the Calcutta High Court when senior advocate and former Union Minister, Mr Arun Jaitley, said that it was not a Birla-Lodha battle as described by the media but one between public charity and personal gain. Mr Jaitley tried to summarise the course of his argument before Mr Justice K.J. Sengupta; his objective being to prove the Birlas had a caveatable interest in the will of Priyamvada Birla. During the last seven days, Mr Rajendra Singh Lodha's counsel, Mr Anindya Mitra, had argued that Mr Yashvardhan Birla, Mr B.K. Birla and Mr K.K. Birla did not have a caveatable interest. At the outset, Mr Jaitley doubted the authenticity of the 1999 will of Priyamvada Birla and the subsequent codicil, which in this case was a letter written by her to Mr Lodha. He suggested that Mr Lodha had taken the opportunity provided by his fiduciary role in the MP Birla group and created documents for his personal gain against the wishes of philanthropy as repeatedly stated by MP Birla and his wife in all the wills. According to him, the 1999 will was a "camouflaged" document and contradicted the basic tenor of the 1982 set of wills wherein it was categorically stated that the group estate would be used for philanthropic activities. "As the couple had no child, they had always believed that their assets were `God's gift' and they wanted it to be used for public charity and the good of the people," Mr Jaitley said. In this context, he mentioned that the 1982 set of mutual wills was reciprocal in nature and, therefore, did not give any right to Priyamvada Birla to create a fresh will and hand over the estate to any third person. He urged the court to take a liberal view on the aspect of "interest" while considering the caveatable interest of the Birlas and also take into account the factor of "common ancestors." Mr Jaitley pointed out several discrepancies in the codicil and added, "just reading the document creates a high level of suspicion." He also doubted the legality of Priyamvada Birla's 1999 will. Our Legal Correspondent reports: Today, in the first session of the court, Mr Anindya Mitra concluded his arguments stating that Mr K.K. Birla, Mr B.K. Birla and Mr Yashvardhan Birla did not have any right to file a caveat. Mr G.P. Birla's caveat application filed did not figure in Mr Mitra's arguments. It was decided that the arguments on this application would be heard after the lawyers of Birla responded to Mr Mitra arguments on the caveat applications of the first three. Mr Mitra would reply after Mr Jaitley concludes his arguments. The matter will come up again on September 22.
More Stories on : Corporate Disputes | Corporate Disputes
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|