Archive

"Given the factual background of the present case, it appears that the parties involved (have) not faithfully disclosed the extent of their involvement and have undoubtedly held back in making a full and proper disclosure and have been engaged in deceitful conduct,” noted Bombay High Court Justice A. K. Menon delivering his December 21, 2018 judgment in the suit of Shernaz Lawyer and others vs Manek Sukhadwalla.
"The conduct of the defendant, that of the trustees and all those associated... and those inter-meddling with the estate leaves much to be desired,” noted Justice Menon. "Attempts are made to frustrate the exercise undertaken by the administrator and the attitude of the defendants and the respondents is obstructive. The fact that (Sukhadwalla) and the respondents had in the past suppressed information relating to disposal of assets is highlighted by a single judge of this Court in his order dated December 24, 2013.”
In their affidavits the plaintiffs made allegations of a systematic fraud being played on the Court appointed administrator and requested the Court to order a Court-monitored enquiry. The decision is being appealed.
The testamentary suit filed by Lawyer and Villy Avasia dates back to 2012 following a dispute over the will of late Purvez Dalal, a wealthy bachelor who expired in Bombay on December 7, 2011. Two wills were presented: one contained a private bequest to Avasia, the former sister-in-law of the deceased, while the other was put forth by Sukhadwalla (see "A contest of wills,” Parsiana, Events and Personalities, September 21, 2012 and November 21, 2012, "The will to contest,” July 21, 2014 and September 7, 2014.)
Criminal charges of forging a will were levied by Sukhadwalla against Lawyer and Avasia with the dispute leading to an administrator being nominated by the Court at the instance of the two women. Enquiries revealed that large sums of money were taken out of the estate bank account by Sukhadwalla. The administrator, therefore, made a report to the Bombay High Court in which he sought orders for the return of over Rs 17 lakhs to the estate by one Amoha Traders Private Limited (Amoha) and of Rs 15 lakhs by one Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust also referred to as the  Avabai Hormasji Charitable Trust (the Trust has no connection with the House of Tatas, the ladies stated) as well as by Sukhadwalla. The plaintiffs alleged that both Amoha and the Trust were controlled by Jamsheed Panday, whose wife is Sukhadwalla’s cousin.
Sukhadwalla was sentenced to three months in jail for disobeying orders of the Bombay High Court ("Sukhadwalla sentenced,” Parsiana, February 7, 2017). His appeal is pending. He was charged with suppressing the extent of the estate and his dealings with the estate. Justice Menon wrote: "Even considering the involvement of Amoha Traders there are far too many connections with (Sukhadwalla), the estate of the deceased and the numerous financial transactions that require closer scrutiny and such scrutiny is not possible if the defendants/noticees concerned are not forthcoming, truthful and volunteer necessary information as and when such information is sought, failing which the only alternative left is to initiate an inquiry... Given the factual matrix and the complex machinations now revealed, I am inclined to believe that directing an officer of this Court to file an appropriate complaint would be the correct course of action.
"In particular the involvement of Amoha Traders and its various directors and companies under the same set of persons leads me to believe that (the) role of the Avabai Hormasji Charitable Trust requires to be thoroughly probed. Prima facie, it does appear that the said Trust is being used as a screen to siphon away the funds of the estate. In particular, the Trust has not been forthcoming and has been suppressing information about the application made by the trustees’ change reports, applications for change of address and the (like). Despite clear references to these documents and request, this has not been produced by the Trust. The statements made by the trustees have turned out to be incorrect… The use of funds for charitable purposes has not been established, the payments made for medical treatment of non-Parsis is also suspect. Nothing disclosed so far indicates that the Trust has in fact used funds for the benefit of the Parsi community. The involvement of Panday and Sukhadwalla’s proximity to Panday and his companies and the involvement of various other persons” is indicated. The Court noted that "the plaintiffs believed that he (Panday) was the architect of the conspiracy.
"The directors’ report of Canos Trading for the year March 31, 2015 record(ing) that during the year the company had advanced a loan of Rs 69,60,577 to the testator (Dalal) who died on December 7, 2011 is suspect. This statement appearing in a directors’ report for the year ended March 31, 2015 is itself an eye-opener. It has become difficult to find out how such a loan could have been advanced to the deceased three years after his demise.
"The conduct of (Sukhadwalla) is undoubtedly obstructive of the administration of justice and (if) the earlier affairs under administration are probed, the more beneficial it will be for the estate.”
Justice Menon then directed the administrator appointed by the Court to "draw up a complaint” within four weeks which should be forwarded "to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay who shall nominate a suitable team of officers to initiate an investigation into the complaint and the affairs of deceased Purvez Burjor Dalal.” The ruling is being challenged.