High Court Denies Interim Relief in Real Estate Baron's Estate Dispute
The Bombay High Court has denied interim relief to Sabita Rajesh Narang, the daughter of late real estate mogul Gopal Lachmandas Raheja, in her ongoing legal dispute with her brother, Sandeep G Raheja, over their father’s estate. The single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav rejected Narang’s plea for the appointment of an administrator to manage and control the properties, assets, and businesses of the Gopal Raheja Group companies. The court also restrained her brother and other directors from selling, transferring, or creating any encumbrance or third-party rights in the assets and properties of the 26 companies.
Narang had approached the High Court in August 2014, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to one-fourth share in her late father’s estate as per a 1995-96 family arrangement. She argued that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which recognizes equal rights of daughters, like sons, in joint family properties, further solidified her claim. She sought the partition of the properties and assets, including the businesses and entities owned by the Gopal L Raheja Group, and one-fourth share in the entire estate as a coparcener.
Sandeep Raheja opposed his sister’s plea on multiple grounds. According to Sandeep, as per the 1992 oral family arrangement, all family members, including Gopal Raheja, had transferred their shares and interests in the Gopal Raheja Group companies to him, his wife, and children. In return, substantial assets were transferred to Narang and their other sister, Sonali Nimesh Arora.
While rejecting Narang’s plea for interim orders, Justice Jadhav noted that she had not specifically denied the receipt of the assets, which included both movable and immovable properties. The court also pointed out that it was not clear whether the Gopal L Raheja Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) referred to in the 1995-96 family arrangement was, in fact, the Gopal L Raheja Group. Narang would have to prove that the terms referred to the group by adducing evidence, and only then could its properties, assets, and businesses be considered coparcenary properties belonging to the HUF, the court stated.
The judge further noted that based on the material available before the court, it could not be said prima facie that the HUF referred to the group. Therefore, her claim of coparcenary right could not be accepted at this stage. The court also refused to grant Narang’s plea to allow her participation in the management and control of the Gopal L Raheja Group companies and firms. This decision was based on the fact that she was neither a shareholder nor a director of those companies.
“Once it is seen that the plaintiff (Narang) is neither a shareholder nor a director of the defendant companies, then unless and until the plaintiff proves her case and succeeds in proving her case, her claim cannot be considered to interfere and meddle with the operations of the defendant companies/entities,” Justice Jadhav stated. The court also noted that there was no threat to the plaintiff’s claim because the companies are all going concerns and operating in the public domain either as private limited companies or limited liability partnerships.
The Gopal L Raheja Group is a prominent real estate and construction company in India, known for its extensive portfolio of residential and commercial projects. The legal battle between the siblings has drawn significant attention, highlighting the complexities and challenges often associated with family-owned businesses and inheritance disputes.
