- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Lalit Modi Family Property Dispute...
Lalit Modi Family Property Dispute : Supreme Court Appoints Ex-Judges Vikramjit Sen & Kurian Joseph As Mediators
Srishti Ojha
16 Dec 2021 8:34 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Thursday appointed Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Kurian Joseph, former Supreme Court judges, as mediators in the ongoing family property dispute between businessman Lalit Modi, his mother Bina Modi and his siblings.A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli has also suggested that facilities of the Hyderabad...
The Supreme Court on Thursday appointed Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Kurian Joseph, former Supreme Court judges, as mediators in the ongoing family property dispute between businessman Lalit Modi, his mother Bina Modi and his siblings.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli has also suggested that facilities of the Hyderabad Mediation Centre be used by the parties for mediation.
The Bench has directed the parties to maintain confidentiality and has requested the mediators to take an undertaking in that regard.
The Bench has asked the mediators to expedite and complete the Mediation proceedings preferably within a period of 3 months.
The Bench issued the direction after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Harish Salve requested the Court to appoint mediators whose names have not been included in their lists, while also granting them liberty to request for online mediation.
Both sides had suggested names of Judges who could be appointed as Arbitrators.
"I've given 4 names, Mr Salve has given 2 names. Please Appoint an SC judge who is in neither of our lists. We leave it to the court. Not from this list as people have apprehensions," Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said.
CJI NV Ramana proposed the names of Justice RV Ravindran and Justice Sudarshan Reddy, both former judges of the Supreme Court. Rohatgi however replied that these names are in the list furnished by the other side.
"I'm requesting appoint names not there in neither of the lists", Rohatgi submitted.
"These are judges who've recently retired Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Nariman, J Kurian Joseph etc", CJI said.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the other side, said " Your Lordships need not ask us, just take two names".
"I can tell now. I'm suggesting Justices Vikramjit Sen & Kurian Joesph", CJI said. Both sides agreed to the CJI's suggestions.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by businessman Lalit Modi challenging a Delhi High Court judgment which held as maintainable the anti-arbitration injunction suit filed by his mother and siblings against him.
The Bench had on 6th December suggested the parties solve their ongoing family property dispute through mediation in India.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for petitioner Lalit Modi and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Lalit Modi's mother Bina Modi and siblings had agreed to decide on mediators and come back to the Court with the same, so a formal final order can be passed.
Background:
The present special leave petition has been filed challenging the judgment of a division bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that the anti-arbitration injunction suit filed by late industrialist KK Modi's wife Bina Modi against her son Lalit Modi is maintainable.The suit was filed by Lalit Modi's mother Bina Modi, his sister Charu and brother Samiras was filed seeking to restrain the arbitration proceedings initiated by Lalit Modi in Singapore over property disputes in the family.
In March, a single bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw had dismissed the suits filed by the as non-maintainable.
Bina, Charu and Samir, in two separate suits, contended that there was a trust deed between the family members and the KK Modi family trust matters cannot be settled through arbitration in a foreign country as per Indian laws.
Division Bench Order:
The division bench of the High Court in the impugned order dated December 24, 2020, had held that it was settled law that "the Court would have jurisdiction to grant anti-arbitration injunction, where the party seeking the injunction can demonstrably show that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed."
The division bench observed that the appellants had raised a prima facie valid argument that disputes arising out of the family trust deed was not arbitrable and hence held that the single bench ought to have proceeded with the suit.
The division bench expressed the view that issues under the Trusts Act cannot be the subject matter of arbitration since the same are excluded from the purview of the Arbitral Tribunal by necessary implication.
It was held that the subject dispute ought to have been prime facie adjudicated by the single judge, who had to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the court as all the parties are Indian citizens and situs of immovable assets of the trust is in India.
Single Bench Order:
The single bench had taken the view that it was for the arbitral tribunal to decide the issue of arbitrability of the dispute as per Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The division bench held that the reliance placed by the single bench on Section 16 was "misplaced".
The single bench had also held that Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, barred courts from granting injunctions in cases where an equal and efficacious remedy could be obtained through any other mode of proceeding
According to the plaintiffs, KK Modi had trust deed in London before his death in November 2019 to record the terms of the oral family settlement between Bina, Lalit, Charu and Shamir made in 2006.
Lalit Modi's argument is that a clause in the trust deed permitted the sale of assets and distribution of proceeds if the family members failed to reach a settlement within the mandatory 30 days from the demise of KK Modi. According to the trust deed, the beneficiaries will get one year to complete the sale process.
His mother and the two siblings contended that on a true construction of the trust deed, no such sale has been triggered.
Case Title: Lalit Kumar Modi vs Dr Bina Modi & Ors
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Next Story
