Bombay High Court Refuses Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy's Plea For Appointment Of Court Receiver In Property Dispute
The Bombay High Court recently rejected an interim application filed by filmmaker Ramesh Sippy in a property dispute concerning inheritance rights over various assets, including a flat in South Mumbai, shares in Sippy Films Pvt Ltd, and rights to 27 films produced by the production house.Justice Manish Pitale refused to grant interim relief sought by Sippy, which included the appointment of...
The Bombay High Court recently rejected an interim application filed by filmmaker Ramesh Sippy in a property dispute concerning inheritance rights over various assets, including a flat in South Mumbai, shares in Sippy Films Pvt Ltd, and rights to 27 films produced by the production house.
Justice Manish Pitale refused to grant interim relief sought by Sippy, which included the appointment of a court receiver to manage the disputed assets. The court found no substantial evidence provided by Sippy to support his apprehensions regarding the disposal of the flat by the defendants.
“There is hardly any material placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff to show as to in what manner flat 5/A is being dealt with by the defendant Nos.9 and 10, which could give rise to any apprehension on behalf of the plaintiff. No case is made out for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the said flat.”
Sippy claimed that the production company, Sippy Films Pvt Ltd, and its directors were illegally enjoying the assets of his deceased parents.
Sippy, claiming to be the sole surviving son among five siblings, filed a suit in 2023 seeking a one-fifth share in the estate of his deceased parents. He argued that the properties of his parents, acquired after their demise, should be distributed among him and the legal heirs of his siblings. This claim encompassed a flat in Altamount Road, Mumbai, 500 shares of Sippy Films Pvt Ltd, and rights to 27 cinematograph films.
However, the court observed inconsistencies in Sippy's claims, citing his previous legal actions since 2012 and the shifting nature of his assertions. Justice Pitale noted that Sippy failed to demonstrate a prima facie case in his favour and did not approach the court promptly with his grievances.
The court highlighted the lack of urgency displayed by Sippy in addressing the matter and found his reasons for the delay in filing the suit questionable. Additionally, the court pointed out that the documents presented by Sippy, including a will made by his late mother and an affidavit executed by his brother, were not registered, diminishing their legal standing.
Further, the court emphasized that Sippy's nephews, who were allegedly enjoying the assets in question, had not provided sufficient grounds for the appointment of a court receiver to manage the disputed flat. The court ruled that there was no evidence to suggest wrongful disposal of the assets by the defendants, thus dismissing Sippy's plea for interim relief.
Case no. – Interim Application No. 3463 of 2023
Case Title – Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Ajit Sippy & Ors.