There is a dispute over whether the BPP should pay the legal fees for five
high priests who want to intervene in the “renegade” priests’ case
The Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) staff is often caught in the crossfire between the warring trustee factions. Parsiana publishes emails exchanged between BPP senior executive Cawas Panthaki, chief accountant Nilufer Patel, chairman Dinshaw Mehta and trustee Yazdi Desai on June 9 and 10, 2014. The issue relates to payments to be made to lawyers regarding litigation pertaining to the so-called "renegade” priests case before the Supreme Court (SC). There is a difference of opinion among the seven trustees on whether the BPP should pay the legal fees of around Rs 8,00,000 for the five high priests who want to intervene in support of the BPP. The BPP has already spent close to three crore rupees on the dispute to date.
Dinshaw Mehta (left); Yazdi Desai; Cawas Panthaki (below):
decisions and dissension
Email dated June 9, 2014, 1.22 p.m. from Panthaki and Nilufer Patel to Mehta
It is unfair to direct us not to prepare any vouchers or cheques to make payment of bills of counsel (and) advocates on behalf of the high priests in the special leave petition (SLP) No. 6664 / 2011, since the board of trustees at their meeting of 27-05-2014 has already approved issue of payment to counsel and advocates…
We have no choice but to follow the directions of the majority of trustees. However, as requested by you, we will provide you with copies of the said signed cheques in the above matter.
Email from Panthaki to Mehta (no date mentioned)
(Re) Verbal instructions for booking air tickets for advocate Percy Ghandy for attending SC hearing in renegade priests case.
When (the) majority (of) trustees issue directions for booking the tickets or for that matter any matter, please try to understand I have no alternative, but to follow… instructions
Email dated June 9, 2014, 2.14 p.m. from Mehta to Panthaki with copies to six other trustees
Thank you for confirmation of giving xerox copy of the cheque of the unlawful payment on behalf of other private litigants.
As (BPP trustee Muncherji) Cama has often pointed out (the) majority decision is binding on (the) staff only if resolved in a duly constituted board meeting and not otherwise, which please note.
Email dated June 9, 2014, 3.51 p.m. from Desai
It is illegal, unlawful and shameful that Mehta should be instructing (read bullying) the staff not to honor/follow the decision of the board.
With due respect, Munchi is neither a lawyer nor a judge of any court nor the Charity Commissioner (CC), so at best it is his personal opinion and not binding on anyone. So legally, logically and commonsense wise, the majority decision is binding on staff not only if resolved in a duly constituted board meeting (whatever that means?) but also otherwise, which please very kindly note.
Email dated June 9, 2014 , 8.40 p.m. from Mehta to Desai with copies to Panthaki, six trustees and Patel
Yazdi is wrong in interpreting that a trustee has no right to instruct staff (not bully as alleged) if an illegal and unlawful act is perpetrated even by (a) majority of (the) trustees. Not only does he have the right to so instruct the staff but even the staff suo moto can object to perform an illegal act even if approved by (a) majority. They must take competent legal opinion and advice if they feel that any act ordered to them is unlawful. Otherwise tomorrow (a) majority can sell off as an example Doongerwadi without due process of law and the staff (will have) to implement that illegal decision. I had myself opined that if they want to obey the patently illegal decision then to give me a copy of the cheque. Hence I fail to understand Yazdi’s arrogant mail.
As regards (a) majority decision… in a board meeting I will leave it to Muncherji to clarify.
Email dated June 10, 2014, 3.43 p.m. from Desai to Mehta with copies to six other trustees, Panthaki and Patel
Your suggestion that the staff should take legal advice to check whether (the) trustees’ decision is right or wrong is indeed laughable and not expected of a person who styles himself as chairman of the BPP.
The staff is duty bound to follow the instructions of the majority of the trustees and if anyone has a problem with any decision, he or she is free to approach the CC and/or the community. Period.