The case against and for Mehta

Claims and counterclaims have been issued regarding alleged financial impropriety in the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) in the transaction concerning transfer of tenancy at Dady House. Four of the BPP trustees — Yazdi Desai, Khojeste Mistree, Jimmy Mistry and Arnavaz Mistry — filed a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing of the Bombay Police on November 13, 2013 against Punchayet chairman Dinshaw Mehta. The police complaint led to an eight-page advertisement by Mehta in the Jam-e-Jamshed (JJ) of November 24, rebutting the charges.
The following week’s JJ of December 1 carried a further two pages of advertisements by Mehta, plus four pages by the four complainant trustees according to which at a meeting convened on November 6 at Mistree’s residence, even trustees Armaity Tirandaz and Muncherji Cama had signed the draft complaint. The following day at a meeting at Nusli Wadia’s office, all six signed the complaint but a day later Tirandaz withdrew her signature and subsequently even Cama.
"A trust cannot receive money in cash…It is not the policy of the BPP to enter into cash transactions…Investigate the case and bring the culprit to book,” noted the police complaint.

Dinshaw Mehta: innocent until proven guilty

According to Mehta, the allegation that "I have misappropriated cash from a transaction relating to a transfer of tenancy for a flat situated at Dady House, 1st floor, Bora Bazaar…is a politically motivated complaint mainly by Yazdi and Khojeste…to settle personal scores after Yazdi’s wife Anahita Desai lost in the last bitterly fought elections to Cama and the removal of Khojeste from the Doongerwadi Greenery Programme.” Mehta lamented that "the trial by media is going on based on the fabricated and false complaint filed before the police authorities without waiting for the complaint to be investigated and the truth ascertained.”
As per the complaint, in November 2012, H. S. Birdi of Eagle Shipping (India) Services who has been the first floor tenant/occupant of Dady House met the trustees of the BPP and stated his intention of surrendering his tenancy…to Yusufbhai (as per the complaint Musharaf Yusuf Kader, Abdul Kareem, Mohiuddin Abdul Kader are the proposed incoming tenants as also Accused 2, 3 and 4). "At that time, to the best recollection of Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 (Desai and Mistree), it was agreed that BPP will get a minimum of Rs 65 lakhs for agreeing to transfer/create the tenancy in favor of the incoming tenants. However to the best recollection of (Arnavaz Mistry) Complainant No. 4, Cama and Tirandaz, the figure was not Rs 65 lakhs but Rs 45 lakhs. After discussion, Birdi was asked to put his proposal in writing.”
Counters Mehta, "In the complaint of the four trustees itself, Arnavaz Mistry contradicts Yazdi and Khojeste and states the total sum due to the BPP is Rs 45 lakhs. This is the truth…Since 20 lakhs had already been received hence only 25 lakhs balance was to be received. Thus their very allegation of cash 45 lakhs being received falls flat.”
In August 2013 Desai was sent an agreement of tenancy but he did not immediately sign and execute the said document. On enquiring with the Punchayet chief executive officer (CEO)Mehli Colah (Witness No. 1) whether the full amount of Rs 65,00,000 was received he was allegedly told "that the new occupants were not able to arrange for the full amount by cheque and they have given only Rs 20,00,000 by cheque and the balance Rs 45,00,000 they can only give by cash… The said document was stamped with the requisite stamp duty of Rs 6,47,500 on 23rd July 2013.” Elaborating on this figure, the four-page advertisement in Jamé states that the figure of Rs 6,47,500 "is five percent of the Ready Reckoner value of the premises (Rs 2,58,86,000) minus 50% reduction given by the Government because of Dady House being an old building (Rs 1,29,43,000). Fifty percent of the amount goes to the outgoing tenant and 50% (Rs 65 lakhs) has to come to the BPP.”
Desai knew of this tenancy proposal since August, yet chose not to bring it up "before the board of trustees or the CEO for further queries until October 29, nine days after Colah slipped into a coma,” asserts Mehta.
The complainants further alleged, "In the meeting of the trustees on August 20, 2013, a recording of this transaction was made. However, no amount was recorded... Mehta informed the other trustees that though Birdi... and the incoming tenant met the trustees in March 2013, this meeting was inadvertently left out to be recorded in the March minutes and therefore the same is being recorded in the minutes of 20th August 2013. No details were recorded...”
Maintained Mehta, "The agenda and draft minutes of every meeting is prepared and circulated by the BPP administration and after incorporating final rectifications, if any, received from any trustee the same are approved.”
Yet another contention in the complaint was that after the BPP trustees’ meeting of Tuesday, October 15, 2013 "Desai happened to meet Witness No. 1 (Colah) outside the BPP office washroom that evening, …(and) immediately took the opportunity to check with Witness No. 1 as to the status of payment to be given by the incoming tenants and why the incoming tenants were not called to the trustees meeting to discuss this. To which Witness No. 1 categorically stated that cash of Rs 45,00,000 was already received from the incoming tenants and was (allegedly) taken away by the Accused (Mehta).” Desai believed "this conduct of ...Mehta is unacceptable and the matter should be brought to the attention of the trustees.”
As per Mehta, "Desai was absent for the board meeting of 15 October. At no point in time did he ever enter the BPP office on that day. The fact that he claims to have met Colah outside the washroom that evening is a blatant lie… Since our CEO went into a coma on October 20, then at least Yazdi himself should have brought this to the attention of the trustees as thereafter two board meetings were held on October 22 and 29, both of which were attended by Yazdi and yet he did not deliberately bring this matter before the board.”
Desai though insisted in the advertisement issued by the four that he had gone to the BPP later that evening "after the meeting” and had met Colah as he wanted to ensure that his Power of Attorney (on the issue of allotting another BPP flat) was withdrawn. Mehta’s second advertisement maintained, "This too seems fabricated” as he and Cama "left the Punchayet office together with Colah immediately after the October 15 meeting.”
The complaint also refers to an urgent board meeting convened by Mehta on November 5 at Jimmy Mistry’s office when Mehta allegedly confirmed that "a sum of Rs 20 lakhs was received by cheques in favor of BPP, a sum of Rs 25 lakhs was received in cash by…Colah; the Accused was not aware as to where the cash of Rs 25 lakhs was lying and in whose custody it was as at that time; the said cash of Rs 25 lakhs was taken by BPP but the said amount would be replaced by cheque prior to registration of the said document.” Thereafter on November 7, "all the six trustees willingly, and after being made fully aware and seized of the matter, signed a police complaint... On November 9…Tirandaz withdrew her signature on the police complaint ...for reasons best known to her.”
Mehta chose to quote from Tirandaz’s letter of November 8 addressed to Desai and Mistree where she states, "This is to bring on record that on November 7 I was called by two trustees (Desai and Mistree) who induced me to sign on certain documents. I was advised by them that if I do not sign the said complaint in the capacity of a complainant I will be made an innocent accused. At the age of 70 I did not want to get into any legal problems.”
Finally the complaint refers to Mehta’s email of November 9 stating that "cheque/s for the purported balance had been received from the proposed incoming tenants…Therefore the…issue should be treated as closed. The accused offered no clarification regards issues such as the dates and amounts of the cheque/s, details of how and by whom the cheque/s had been received and whether the cash that had been received earlier…had been returned to the proposed incoming tenant…”

Trustees on Tuesdays
Of the 47 meetings of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet trustees held from January to November 2013, the only meeting when all seven trustees were present almost from the commencement (allowing for 11 minutes’ delay) was the last one held on November 26. Whilst the trustees’ meetings are generally slated for every Tuesday at 3 p.m., the last two in November commenced at 6 p.m.
Chairman Dinshaw Mehta and Muncherji Cama showed 100% attendance for the period with Cama being punctual for every meeting and Mehta being delayed for two meetings by eight to 15 minutes.
Arnavaz Mistry and Armaity Tirandaz both had 91% attendance, being absent for only four meetings. But whilst Mistry was punctual 95% of the time with the delay varying from 11 to 48 minutes, Tirandaz was on time for 98% of the meetings, barring one occasion when she was delayed by one hour, 13 minutes.
Khojeste Mistree being present for 33 meetings showed 70% attendance. Amongst the meetings he attended, he was behind schedule 48% of the time, the delay varying from three minutes to two hours, 54 minutes
Yazdi Desai had the second lowest attendance being present for only 55% of the meetings and being punctual for only two of the 26 meetings he attended. At other meetings the delay ranged from six minutes to four hours, 54 minutes. Jimmy Mistry could manage only 49% attendance. Of the 23 meetings he attended, he was late for all, the delay varying from 11 minutes to four hours, 35 minutes. (See attendance box)