Bombay High Court rejects Ramesh Sippy’s plea for a court receiver in property inheritance dispute, denying request for control over flat and films post-parents’ demise.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: Recently, the Bombay High Court issued a significant judgment, rejecting an interim plea by Sippy, who sought the appointment of a court receiver regarding a dispute arising from the inheritance of property and several cinematographic films following the demise of his parents.
Ramesh Sippy, the renowned director renowned for the iconic film “Sholay,” approached the court with an interim plea seeking the court’s intervention to appoint a receiver to oversee a valuable apartment and 27 cinematographic films. Sippy argued that these assets, purportedly intestate following his parents’ demise, were being wrongfully utilized by Sippy Films Pvt Ltd and its directors.
However, Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court deemed the filmmaker’s apprehensions unfounded.
ALSO READ: Telangana High Court Upholds Daughter’s Right to Inheritance Regardless of Financial Status
The judgment highlighted-
“Justice Manish Pitale, presiding as a sole judge, found insufficient evidence presented by Sippy to validate his concerns regarding the defendants’ potential disposal of the flat.”
This lack of substantiation significantly impacted the court’s verdict to decline Sippy’s plea.
Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the legal heirs of Sippy’s siblings, as well as the company, had been asserting rights over the 27 films for a considerable duration. This continued claim of rights further undermined Sippy’s stance.
The court’s observation was unequivocal:
“In addition to this, the position adopted (by Sippy) in the current lawsuit seems to diverge from the claims made in previous proceedings initiated by Sippy. Consequently, he has not succeeded in establishing a prima facie case in his favor.”
Ramesh Sippy’s legal move was part of a larger suit seeking a declaration of share in the estate of his deceased parents among the surviving legal heirs. He claimed that of all the children, only he survived, thereby stipulating that the properties left by his parents needed to be fairly distributed between him and the legal heirs of his siblings.
Among the contested assets were a prized flat in South Mumbai, 500 shares of Sippy Films Pvt Ltd., and the rights to 27 cinematograph films produced by the company. Sippy’s demand included a one-fifth share of his deceased parents’ estate.
ALSO READ: #BREAKING|| Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code: President Gives Assent To The Law
- Advocate Shanay Shah, briefed by Bachubhai Munim & Co. represented Sippy.
- Advocates Archit Jayakar, Pooja Yadav, and Parita Mashruwala, briefed by Jayakar & Partners, provided legal representation for Sippy Films company and its directors.
Case Title:
Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Sippy & Ors.
