Property Dispute Between Lalit Modi & Family : Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing To December 15

The Supreme Court On Monday adjourned to the 15th December the plea 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.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli adjourned the matter today after it was informed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal that Bina Modi, mother of Lalit Modi is unwell and requested that the matter be adjourned till after the winter vacation.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for Lalit Modi informed the Court that pursuant to the suggestions made by the Court during the last hearing, he'd exchanged names of mediators with Mr Kapil Sibal. He suggested that if the matter is being adjourned, the Court may appoint a mediator in the meanwhile.

However, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the respondents insisted on an adjournment to enable Mr Sibal to appear and make submissions.

On the last occasion (6th December), the Bench had suggested businessman Lalit Modi, his mother Bina Modi, and his brother and sister solve their ongoing family property dispute through mediation in India.

Lalit Modi had initiated arbitration proceedings in Singapore over property disputes in the family. The same was opposed by Lalit Modi's mother Bina Modi, his sister Charu and brother Samiras who filed a suit seeking to restrain those proceedings

While the Bench had initially stated that being family members, the parties may agree to Arbitration or Mediation in India. It had later suggested that they should resort to mediation. The Bench had also clarified that it is only a suggestion and the parties can choose to not agree to the same.

"What we feel is, it is a dispute of family members apart from trust etc. There's a provision in your deed also about resorting to mediation, or arbitration. This is only a suggestion. Why don't you agree to mediation or arbitration in India?" CJI had told the Counsels appearing for both parties.

Both Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had agreed to decide on mediators & venue for mediation and come back to the Court with the same, so a formal final order can be passed.

Background:

In January this year, Supreme Court had directed Lalit Modi to serve a copy of the power of attorney on the respondents, after an objection was raised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on caveat for the respondents.

He had submitted the respondents did not have the power of attorney used to file the petition in the Supreme Court.

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 On 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