The Hindu Business Line : Birlas knew M.P. Birla died intestate: Lodha's counsel

This statement was made on Wednesday by Mr Anindya Mitra, counsel for Mr R.S. Lodha, during his arguments in the matter pertaining to the application for seeking discharge of the caveat filed by the four Birlas in the probate petition of Mr Lodha, made before Justice K. J. Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court.

Continuing his arguments on the sixth day of hearing, Mr Mitra produced the registered deed of sale between the late Priyamvada Birla and Punjab Produce and Trading Co Ltd dated September 22, 1992, where Priyamvada Devi states that M. P. Birla, her husband, died intestate.

Interestingly, Mr Mitra said the registration of the sale deed has been witnessed by Mr S. K. Lath and Mr R. K. Choudhury, the two partners of Khaitan and Company, and this sale deed was made under the backsheet of Khaitan and Company.

This document proves that Birlas have knowledge about M. P. Birla having died intestate, Mr Mitra added.

The counsel further saidthat Mr K. K. Birla and others, in their affidavit, stated that late Priyamvada Birla was one of the executrix of the will allegedly made in 1982. It was submitted by Mr Mitra that no document has ever been produced showing that Priyamvada Birla has accepted the responsibility as executrix.

It was further submitted that under the Hindu Succession Act, there is no provision of irrevocable will.

He was quoting the statement made by Mr K. K. Birla in his affidavit, that in 1981, M. P. Birla and Priyamvada Birla entered into an oral agreement that they shall not make any further will and that their property shall be used for charity.

For this purpose both M.P. Birla and Priyamvada Birla made two wills in 1981.

Further, they changed their mind and made an irrevocable mutual will in 1982.

Mr Mitra questioned that under the Hindu Succession Act, there was no provision of irrevocable will and no document has ever been produced with regard to the agreement and since both the wills make no whisper made about this agreement, this statement of Mr K. K. Birla should not be accepted by the Court of Law.

Mr Mitra said co-trusteeship, co-directorship and co-ownership do not create any caveatable interest for the Birlas.

He relied on the Indian Trust Act, where it is stated that after death, the trusteeship goes.

Citing Mr K. K. Birla's affidavit, which says that Priyamvada Birla was a co-trustee with other Birla family members in the Trustee Board, Mr Mitra said co-directorship also does not create any caveatable interest.

A person in his will, cannot hand over directorship of the company to anybody else, because the directors are appointed by the shareholders of the company.

Hence, the claims of Birlas that Priyamvada Birla was a co-owner of Pilani Investment and Birla Brothers does not make any sense in the eyes of law.

For co-owners, Mr Mitra showed a note of Mr K. K. Birla sent to Priyamvada Birla dated November 11, 1996, for sale of an orchard, and there was no whisper even in that document about any will of 1982.

Mr Mitra disputed the claim of Mr K. K. Birla that Priyamvada Birla had committed a fraud on her husband, showing total disregard and breach of agreement with him.

He also disputed the statement of Mr K.K. Birla that Priyamvada Birla had no right to make any independent will.

The hearing will continue.

More Stories on : Corporate Disputes | Courts/Legal Issues

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page