ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR Vs. S. S. KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These contempt applications have been filed by the defendants in Title Suit No. 6 of 2004 (a testamentary suit) alleging wilful, deliberate and contumacious violation of a common order dated October 1, 2020 passed by this Bench in APO No.89 of 2020, APO No.90 of 2020, APO No.91 of 2020, APO No.92 of 2020 and APO No.95 of 2020. The alleged contemnors are the plaintiff No.1, Harsh Vardhan Lodha (HVL) and each of the directors of the four public listed companies, namely, Universal Cables Ltd. (UCL), Birla Cable Limited (BCab), Vindhya Telelinks Limited (VTL) and Birla Corporation Limited (BCL). Harsh Vardhan Lodha's participation in the Board Meetings of these companies as the director/chairman, have been alleged to be contumacious. The allegations are primarily against HVL and consequently against the directors of the companies who have allegedly aided and abetted HVL in committing the contempt. All the applications have been heard analogously.

(2.) Before dealing with the allegations, the factual backdrop of the case is discussed for convenience. An Administrator Pendente Lite Committee (APL Committee) was appointed in course of the probate proceedings which had been given the authority to exercise all rights flowing from the estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla (in short "PDB"), which were mainly controlling block of shares in the companies. The constitution of the committee changed from time to time. The said testamentary suit was filed by R.S. Lodha (RSL) executor, for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of late PDB. Upon the death of RSL, it was converted into a suit for grant of letters of administration. HVL is the plaintiff No.1. By an order dated August 23, 2012 passed by this court, the extent of the estate of the rights and powers to be exercised by the said APL Committee in relation to the estate of PDB was laid down. APL Committee in the course of administration and management of the estate of PDB issued certain directions on July 19, 2019 and July 30, 2019.

(3.) These two decisions were challenged by the plaintiffs in the probate suit by filing two separate applications being G.A. 1761 of 2019 and G.A. 1786 of 2019. The defendants in the suit also filed two separate applications being G.A.1735 of 2019 and G.A. 1845 of 2019 praying for implementation of these decisions.