Court rules Probate Court lacks jurisdiction in Birla Corp internal matters, emphasizes reinstatement of Administrator Pendente Lite.

Priyamvada Devi Birla (deceased) And Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors. Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Ors.

Priyamvada Devi Birla (deceased) And Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors. Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Defendants' Applications.
2. Jurisdiction of the Probate Court.
3. Admissibility of Newspaper Reportings.
4. Role and Powers of the Board of Directors and Promoters.
5. Appointment and Functionality of Administrator Pendente Lite (APL).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Defendants' Applications:
The plaintiffs challenged the maintainability of the defendants' applications on the grounds that they do not disclose any cause of action and are based on inadmissible evidence from newspaper reports. The defendants argued that the applications should be examined based on the principles underlying Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, accepting the statements in the applications as true and correct. The court agreed with the defendants that the maintainability should be assessed by assuming the truth of the statements in the applications.

2. Jurisdiction of the Probate Court:
The plaintiffs contended that the Probate Court's jurisdiction is limited to determining the genuineness of the Will and does not extend to business management issues of a company. The court agreed, stating that the Probate Court's primary duty is to examine the genuineness of the Will and ensure the estate's preservation. The court held that the Probate Court cannot interfere with the internal management of Birla Corporation Limited (BCL) or pass orders affecting its business decisions.

3. Admissibility of Newspaper Reportings:
The plaintiffs argued that newspaper reportings are hearsay and inadmissible as evidence. The court agreed, referencing Supreme Court decisions that newspaper reportings per se are not admissible unless supported by affidavits from the reporters. However, the defendants filed a supplementary affidavit with statutory notifications from BCL, which the court accepted, thereby providing a cause of action for the applications.

4. Role and Powers of the Board of Directors and Promoters:
The plaintiffs argued that the Board of Directors has exclusive powers under Section 179(3) of the Companies Act to make business decisions, including acquiring other companies, without needing approval from promoters. The court agreed, stating that the decision to acquire cement manufacturing units from Reliance Infrastructure was within the Board's jurisdiction and not subject to the promoters' control. The court held that the Probate Court cannot regulate the day-to-day business management of BCL.

5. Appointment and Functionality of Administrator Pendente Lite (APL):
The court noted that the APL, appointed to manage the estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla, had become non-functional due to the resignation of one of its members. The court emphasized the need to make the APL functional to protect the estate's interests. The court suggested that the parties approach the appropriate forum to reinstate the APL, enabling it to exercise its powers in accordance with the Companies Act.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the defendants' applications, holding that the Probate Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought, which pertain to the internal management of BCL. The court emphasized the necessity of making the APL functional to safeguard the estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla. The applications filed by the defendants and the demurrer applications filed by the plaintiffs were disposed of with these observations.