KARAMJIT JAISWAL Vs. INVESTEC TRUST JERSEY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit seeks permanent injunction, to restrain the first five Defendants (hereafter "the trustees") from inter alia dealing with the testate estate of Ladli Prasad Jaiswal (hereafter "the deceased"), of which they were trustees during his lifetime, and from initiating any legal proceeding in respect of it.; and also to restrain the eighth and ninth Defendants from supporting any such action on the part of the said trustees.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the Plaintiff is son of the deceased, and the sole beneficiary of two wills, dealing with the estates of the deceased in Jersey and the British Virgin Islands. The first five Defendants were constituted as the deceased's trustees the deceased, who was a majority (51%) share holder in Jagatjit Industries Ltd (JIL) through a series of corporate holdings, and trusts. Of these, Hirgo Trading Ltd owned 1,225,000 GDRs, representing 25,100,000 shares of JIL; that company is registered in British Virgin Islands, and administered by the first defendant (Investec) as trustee of the deceased. Orissa Holdings Ltd held about 1,000,000 shares in JIL; 60% of its shareholding was owned directly by the deceased, and 40% was held by Tresiles Trust Ltd, a private trust owned by the deceased, and also by Theodores, a trust company owned by the deceased. 5500 GDRs in JIL were directly held by the deceased, in addition. The sixth Defendant the executrix of the deceased's two wills; the seventh Defendant is the deceased's wife; the eighth Defendant is the son of the deceased, and the ninth Defendant claims to be the legitimate son of the deceased. This legitimacy claim is the subject matter of a suit CS(OS) No. 650 of 2006, pending before this Court.

(3.) There are three proceedings pending before this Court; the first being Test Case No. 22 of 2006 for the grant of the letters of administration of the deceased's estate to the Plaintiff; the second, being Test Case No. 23 of 2006 filed by the sixth Defendant for obtaining probate of the wills; the third, being a suit CS(OS) No. 650 of 2006 instituted by the Plaintiff for declaration that the deceased had only two sons- the plaintiff and eighth Defendant, and that therefore the ninth Defendant is disentitled to a share in the deceased's estate, in the event the Court declares the wills (of the deceased) to be invalid. The three suits are pending before this Court and are at an advanced stage of recording evidence.