To pay or not to pay
That is the question confronting the Bombay Parsi Punchayet trustees regarding the high priests’ intervention in the priests ban case
The main bone of contention is the Rs 11 lakhs or so to be paid to a lawyer for representing the five high priests as intervenors in the matter before the Supreme Court (SC). BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta and trustee Muncherji Cama as well as the BPP auditors reportedly state the trust cannot make payment on behalf of the intervenors who are supporting the BPP ban on two priests, Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza who were barred from praying at Doongerwadi and two fire temples controlled by the apex Bombay trust as they perform religious ceremonies for Parsi Zoroastrians opting for cremation. Though the ban had reportedly been passed earlier it had not been enforced till the BPP and World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder trustees Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai were elected to the BPP board in October 2008. The trustees claim they imposed the ban on the instructions of the high priests.
The ban is supported by BPP trustees Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Mistree, Desai and Armaity Tirandaz though besides Mistree and Desai none of the other three trustees have publicly supported the ban or explained their point of view since the issue of payment arose.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court (BHC) held that the trustees were not empowered under the BPP trust deeds to ban the priests. The trustees then filed a special leave petition before the SC which directed mediation. The mediation which lasted over two years failed but on August 25, 2014 the apex Court again directed the parties to appoint a mutually acceptable mediator within four weeks.
Counsels Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Percy Ghandy and P. P. Rao instructed by Raian Karanjawala are appearing for the BPP though there is some uncertainty whether Rao is appearing for the BPP or the high priests and on whose authority.
Email dated August 23, 2014, 4.05 p.m. from Mistree to co-trustees and senior BPP executive Cawas Panthaki
This matter (the priests ban case) has been listed on Monday 25, 2014 in Court Room No. 12, at Serial No. 42. This matter in all likelihood will be taken up for admission and therefore it is imperative that counsels Percy Ghandy and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi are available at hand.
Debmalya of Karanjawala and Company has insisted that Percy carry with him the cheques for Singhvi and also for counsel P. P. Rao with him.
Accordingly, I seek your approval for the administration to process the following payment so that Percy can carry the following cheques with him tomorrow to Delhi:
Abhishek Manu Sighvi — Bill No. 28350 dated 5/8/2014 for Rs 5,50,000.
P. P. Rao — Bill No. 0438 dated 5/5/2014 for Rs 2,75,000 (there is yet another Invoice of Rao No. 0426 dated 16/4/2014 for Rs 5,30,000, which can be paid later, since there is pressure on our funds).
Please send me your approval by mail immediately so that administration is able to prepare the cheques for Percy to carry with him on Sunday.
Peace and Light.
4.25 p.m. from Desai presumably to co-trustees and others
Of course. Please have the cheques prepared and sent.
Best,
5.15 p.m. from Cama presumably to co-trustees and others
Since the matter is at Serial No. 42 where is the necessity to have three counsels at the admission stage? Is there a resolution appointing Rao as a BPP counsel? Who is appearing for the high priests? If we have counsel from Delhi why do we need to send counsel from Bombay? Please do not go on such a wasteful spending spree of charity funds. In the circumstances, I cannot agree with you.
5.40 p.m. from Mehta presumably to co-trustees, staff and lawyers
Yesterday when I informed Cawas (Panthaki) not to send Percy to Delhi as the matter was 42 on the list, Cawas informed me that he had already booked business class tickets and Taj Hotel on instructions of Khojeste as he was informed by Khojeste that the matter was listed at Serial No. under 20. His own mail of today gives a lie to what he had informed Cawas. Let Raian appoint a junior from his office to attend on Monday. Every adjournment is costing charity Rs 10 lakhs every time which cannot be justified in our present financial crisis.
Cawas and Nilufer (Patel) please do not prepare any cheque till this matter is discussed in board meeting on Tuesday. In any case no cheque be issued or released without Muncherji’s endorsement.
Warm regards,
6 p.m. from Mehta to co-trustees, Ghandy, Karanjawala and Falee Bilimoria
Falee (partner of Kalyanivala and Mistry, the BPP auditors) is a victim of fraud and manipulation. Rao has never been appointed by BPP at any stage as he was to represent the intervenors (the high priests) as his original bill clearly demonstrates. Since Arnavaz’s capability is known to all, wonder who has drafted her mail. Since Percy is going in any case let him appear alone and he knows the case better than any senior counsel and we do not need any other counsel. Percy is capable and we must encourage him and avoid loss of charity funds in view of our financial crunch.
As chairman I direct both of you, Cawas and Nilufer not to issue any cheque till matter is discussed at board meeting on Tuesday and till then let Percy hold the fort.
6.15 p.m. from Desai to Mehta and presumably copies to others
Sorry Dinshaw, the chairman of the BPP has no other power except to conduct BPP board meetings and exercise a casting vote in case of a tie.
Consequently, you have no right or authority to issue instructions to the administration which are in conflict with the decision of the board. And Cawas and Nilufer can safely ignore your instructions in this matter.
Best,
6.38 p.m. from Mehta presumably to Mistree and Desai with copies to others
Decision of the board in a board meeting is mandatory. Your trying to terrorize the staff like you did with Phiroze Patel is despicable. There is no board resolution appointing Rao as BPP counsel and hence no cheque can be issued to him. Besides the only board resolution is for the three of us to sign cheques and no one else.
Cawas and Nilufer please do not issue any cheques without authorization from the board in a board meeting as it will be illegal and if any is issued you will be abetting an illegal act and we will have no recourse but to ask the Bank to stop payment if such unlawful act is committed.
Warm regards,
6.57 p.m. from Mehta to Karanjawala
Raian they have issued cheque to Rao without board approval of his appointment. We will issue stop payment instructions to the Bank on Monday. This is just to keep you informed.
Warm regards,
7.13 p.m. from Mistree to Mehta
You continue to suffer from amnesia, as it is clear from your earlier emails. There is a specific board resolution authorizing payment to Rao and there is also a board resolution that the BPP will go ahead with the renegade priests case in the Supreme Court.
Consequently, all the legal expenses will be paid by the BPP as this has been the majority decision of the BPP board. Please stop threatening, misleading and terrorizing the BPP staff, just because you are in the minority and cannot have your way.
It is time you saw the writing on the wall!
Yours disgustingly,
11.49 p.m. from Mehta to co-trustees, Ghandy, Karanjawala and Bilimoria
With your shaking hands it seems even your brain is now addled. The board resolution you are talking of is when he appeared on behalf of intervenors/ the high priests which payment was objected not only by us but also by our auditors. There is no board resolution appointing Rao as BPP counsel. If so please point out in clear unequivocal terms in which board meeting Rao was approved to appear on behalf of BPP.