This appeal challenged a Single Judge's order restraining parties from dealing with deceased Balraj Sahni's estate, including Ikraam Bungalow and intellectual property rights. The High Court held the order equitable and justified, finding no error in principle or discretion exercised.
Appeal dismissed; notice of motion disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
skc
3-APP-78-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2015 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 846 OF 2014 IN
SUIT NO. 63 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 728 OF 2015 IN
APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2015
Smt. Santosh Sahni & Anr. .. Appellants versus Shri Parikshet Sahni .. Respondent
Mr. Mihir Desai – Senior Advocate with Mr. Swaraj Jadhav for Appellants.
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina with Ms Meenakshi Iyer with Ms Prachi Ojha i/b. M/s. Advaya Legal for Respondent.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER 2016
P.C.:
1] This appeal is directed against the order dated 16 December 2014, by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of notice of motion no. 846 of 2014 in suit no. 63 of 2011 by directing the following: “(a) The Defendants will on or before 12th January 2015 either themselves or through a properly constituted attorney file an affidavit disclosing the assets comprised in the estate of the deceased Balraj Sahni as on the date of his death, 13th April 1973, and which are within their knowledge, control or possession;
(b) The earlier order of 18th September 2014 is to continue as an order on this Notice of Motion as regards the Ikraam Bungalow;
1 of 3
2
skc
3-APP-78-15
(c) the Defendants are also restrained from in any manner dealing with the assigning, exploiting, transferring or creating any third party rights in respect of the intellectual property rights or copyright of Balraj Sahni, if any exists, and in respect of the items listed at Sr. Nos. 1-A, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in Exhibit “D” to the plaint pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit.
(d) Suit to be listed on 14th January 2015. Further directions of filing documents and evidence affidavits on an appropriate issue will be issued thereafter.”
2] Mr. Mihir Desai, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Letters of Administration were obtained by the appellants on 21 December 1979. Further, the respondents has also accepted two flats under the family arrangement and thereafter agreed to relinquish rights, if any, in respect of the rest of the property of the deceased late Balraj Sahni. Mr. Desai submitted that in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent had made out any prima facie case for grant of interim reliefs and the restraint put upon the appellants by the impugned order is, by no means justified. Mr. Desai pointed out that the appellant no. 1 is almost 96 years old and in the failing health. The restraint order, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is therefore quite harsh and inequitable.
3] We have considered Mr. Desai's submissions and also perused the record. In our opinion, the directions in the impugned order are quite equitable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order, in effect, restraints the appellants from creating any third party rights in respect of Ikraam Bungalow and the intellectual property rights or copyrights in respect of the estate of late Balraj Sahni. Such a restraint order, neither disturbs the physical possession of the appellants in Ikraam Bungalow nor does the same
2 of 3
3
skc
3-APP-78-15
change the status quo in so far as intellectual property rights, copyrights and other estate of late Balraj Sahni is concerned.
4] The apprehensions in the context of old age and failing health of the appellant no. 1 expressed by Mr. Desai have been suitably addressed in paragraph 8 of the impugned order. The suit has been accorded priority and necessary directions have already been issued with regard to the disposal of the suit expeditiously.
5] We are satisfied that discretion exercised in this case by the learned Single Judge is neither arbitrary nor perverse. There is no error in so far as any principle is concerned. Therefore, applying the test in the case of Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd .1 and Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Ors .2 we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6] This appeal is therefore dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.
7] In view of dismissal of the appeal, notice of motion does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
chandka
2 (2013) 9 SCC 221
1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727
3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge's order restraining respondents from dealing with inherited property and IP rights was arbitrary or perverse.
Whether the restraint order placed on the appellants was harsh and inequitable.
Whether there was error in principle in the Single Judge's directions for the disposal of the suit.
Smt. Santosh Sahni & Anr.
Shri Parikshet Sahni
DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
M. S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
