“To pay or not to pay” - II

Email dated July 13, 2014, from BPP trustees Mistree, Jimmy Mistry, Arnavaz Mistry and Yazdi Desai to Karanjawala
We, the under mentioned trustees of the BPP would like a clarification from you in the renegade priests matter on the following issues:
Whether senior counsel P. P. Rao is appearing in the matter for the BPP or the high priests?
Whether counsels are required to be briefed at this stage for the hearings in the SC, or whether your assistants would be able to appear at the hearings themselves?

Email dated July 15, 2014 from Karanjawala to Mistree
I am in receipt of your email dated July 13, 2014 wherein you have drawn my attention to the following two questions:
Q1. Whether senior counsel Rao is appearing in the matter for the BPP or the high priests?
Ans. I trust you will recollect Khojeste that when your people had first approached us in this matter with the question as to which counsel is to be briefed, you had indicated right in the very beginning that keeping in mind the fact that according to you this was a most prestigious matter for BPP, you were desirous to brief the best available counsel. Accordingly, we finalized the name of Dr A. M. Singhvi, senior advocate but even at that stage, we pointed out to you that Singhvi with his multifarious commitments is not always able to reach (the court) for the matter and keeping that in mind you had then suggested that we should brief a second senior counsel as a strong backup and that senior ultimately was Rao. My office as also the counsel from Bombay who attended the meeting has given me to understand that it was indicated to Rao that he would appear along with Singhvi, for the BPP and stand in for him, if on any occasion he was not present in the Court. However, keeping in mind the fact that we also have a second brief for the high priests, it was felt that the best utilization of the counsel would be that when Singhvi appears for the BPP, on that occasion we can seamlessly have Rao appear for the high priests since the essential issues are common. I trust this answers your query.
Q2. Whether counsels are required to be briefed at this stage for the hearings in the SC, or whether your assistants would be able to appear at the hearings themselves?
Ans. Frankly, this is not really a question that I can answer because the SC could well (i) unilaterally simplicitor either adjourn the matter or (ii) appoint another mediator or (iii) choose to, whilst familiarizing itself with the facts of the case, hear the matter. This being so, whilst my assistants are easily able to handle the matter on the first two occasions, in case the third eventuality arises whilst we would certainly try and address the issue raised by the Court, normally in the past keeping in mind the importance of the matter you yourself have always indicated that counsel should be present. In any case, please do note that I would not be in a position to brief counsels unless their earlier payments, which are outstanding, are cleared and would also appreciate your looking into our own outstandings.
Also Khojeste, I just thought that I should bring to your attention the fact that it has been mentioned to me that Shyam Divan, counsel for the other side, has in his conversation with his client indicated that keeping in mind the change of Bench a simplicitor adjournment is not necessarily what they will seek.

Email dated July 17, 2014, from Mehta to co-trustees, (BPP senior executive) Cawas Panthaki, Karanjawala, (lawyer) Percy Ghandy, (Kalyaniwalla and Mistry auditor) Falee Bilimoria and (BPP staff) Nilufer Patel
Since Karanjawala represents all the trustees of the BPP, please let me know when the proposed query sent to Raian was discussed in which board meeting and if not why was it done without the approval or knowledge of the board of trustees? Our second counsel was Mukul Rohatgi with whom we held conferences. How did Rao come into the picture? Our auditors have warned us against making payments on behalf of third parties — priests — and the respondents are also aware and have threatened to complain to the Court about collusive litigation. In view of already having spent well over Rs 2.5 crores and the financial crunch we are facing at present it would be prudent to have only one senior counsel in the matter and let the intervenors and their supporters pay their own counsel fees. Even Raian’s letter states that it was Khojeste alone who gave instructions without the board’s knowledge and approval. Since charity funds are being squandered on irrelevant litigation only the board’s written instructions should be followed and not that of any individual trustee. The option of appointing two senior counsel to argue on the same day is a crime for a charity trust especially in our present financial crisis, due to which we have had to keep on hold for the present our well-publicized scheme of second child incentive as well as the Mobed Amelioration Scheme pending for quarter April-June 2014 as per the cash flow statement given by our chief accounts officer.

Email dated August 6, 2014, from Mistree to Mehta
I am responding to your email dated July 17, 2014. As you suffer from selective amnesia, I wish to make the following points:
In the renegade priests matter, from the beginning, we have always had two senior counsels, Singhvi and Rohatgi from April 2011. All of us, then had agreed on this plan of action. At that stage, it was you who wanted a third counsel, Aryanand Sunderam and it was Percy and Raian who dissuaded us then, from keeping a third counsel. You may like to check this with either of these two gentlemen. I distinctly remember you instructing Percy to block three counsels.
The BPP trustees then, cleared all the counsels’ names and it was not done at my bidding, as you are now implying in your email. In fact, some three months ago, Munchi spoke to Raian in Delhi from the BPP board room, when Raian once again reiterated on the phone that we should retain two senior counsels as he had advised earlier. Raian also mentioned that if one of the counsels did not appear when the matter reached for hearing, we would have a second counsel to stand by for him. In fact, Rohatgi no longer can act for us, because of his new government position and therefore our advocate on record has suggested the name of Rao.
I would like to know as to when and where the board’s approval was taken to "dump” mud at our Doongerwadi complex, to dismantle the ozone system, to clear repair bills over five lakh rupees when a resolution has to be passed for any bill over five lakhs… and the list is endless where you have sought to run the BPP as your personal fiefdom, without taking the board’s approval. So please do not take a holier than thou position, on matters that you have acted upon, unilaterally.
It might help you to know that charity funds have been frittered away on all the litigations that you, from a vindictive, ego point of view, have filed against Kersi Randeria, the 104 case, the Panthaki Baug transfer of land case, the Sanjan case, in which the BPP as a party, is not even mentioned, the Sir J. J. allotment of flats case; these are but a few cases that you need to consider before taking a position of not wishing to fritter away charity funds, when you have continually done so with impunity, earlier.
Clearly, you have no concept of upholding principles on any given issue and so as we now know, your position is blow as the wind blows! Ethics are not your forte, but changing positions for political expediency is your motto and has been that of your family over the past 50 years! Dare I say more!

Email dated August 27, 2014, from Mehta to Mistree
It obviously seems your professional career of escorting rich gullible tourists to Iran is non-existent or at an all-time low and hence you find the need and time to derogate someone else, out of boredom. Your actions prove what a despicably sly and cunning person you are. In my mail of July 17, 2014 to which you are ostensibly replying by your mail under reply of August 6, 2014, I categorically inquired of you as to when the board had approved obtaining an opinion from our advocate Karanjawala as regards appointing Rao as senior counsel — who could appear on behalf of intervenors — high priests — to help our case pointing out our auditors’ objection to make payment on behalf of third parties.
I had advised in that mail that in view of the financial crunch we were facing, depriving payments of our schemes to mobeds and second child parents right from April 2014 to stop squandering charity funds on irrelevant litigation and advising Raian that only written instructions of the board of trustees should be followed and not of any individual trustee and to further appoint two senior counsels on one matter is a crime for a charity trust. Instead of answering the above, you go off on a tangent to justify the unwarranted expense the two WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) trustees are inflicting on our board...
With regards to the renegade priests matter Khojeste, you are aware of the true facts and anyone who knowing the truth distorts the same is a liar. The third counsel was mooted as a stop gap arrangement by our advocates in case both our counsels did not turn up which in any case was not implemented. Till date I am not even aware of who Sundaram is. Even the two counsels recommended by Raian — Singhvi and Rohatgi — were as a safety measure to cover up (for) the other if one did not attend and at no stage were two counsels appointed to argue our case at the same time. I and the board are not aware when and to whom Raian suggested appointing Rao as a second counsel, and I request you to show me the minutes of the meeting of our board in which this decision was made. To the best of my knowledge Rao has never been appointed by the board to represent the BPP.
You are well aware that I was in agreement with the August 2013 proposed settlement by consent where our proposal was accepted by Homi Khusrokhan and Jamsheed Kanga to ban any priest from performing at Doongerwadi only if he indulged in the practice of conversions of non-Parsis and further that the two renegade priests would not be allowed to pray at Doongerwadi unless they gave an affidavit that they would not convert non-Parsis. If you recollect, the board, at the request of the high priests had authorized me along with other volunteers to stop the threatened conversion and initiation of a Russian tourist into a mobed at Sanjan for which all of you acquiesced and Jimmy sent his PRG (Parsi Resource Group) volunteers and Khojeste sent their WAPIZ volunteers to Sanjan and all of you proudly proclaimed it as a deed well done.
Subject to the above conversion covenant, it has been and is my stand that we have no authority under the trust deed to ban a priest who has been selected by a Parsi beneficiary to perform religious prayers at Doongerwadi for the dakhmenashini system of disposal of our dead, just because he may have indulged outside in cremation prayers unacceptable to you and WAPIZ. We cannot be rigid and have to accept that views of some members of our own community differ from ours and whilst we individually or collectively are bound to protect our trust properties we cannot stop them from believing what they feel is right or wrong. On this premise we are becoming dictators on the religious front when in reality we are only guardians of trust property.
You are another example of height of hypocrisy. I can see how you uphold principles and your concept of political expediency on any given issue by your now actively partnering with Randeria, a known liberal reformist... so I am ignoring all your other innuendos as not worth replying at this stage. It is obvious that for you any enemy of your enemy is your friend...

Email dated September 8, 2014, from Mistree to Mehta, co-trustees, Panthaki, Ghandy, Bilimoria, Patel and Karanjawala
I thought it necessary to respond to all the wild allegations you have leveled against me with regard to the renegade priests issue in your email of August 27, 2014.
For your information; we have been engaging two counsels in Delhi since we lodged our case in the SC. In a letter by Karanjawala and Company April 18, 2011 it is clearly stated: "As discussed Singhvi appeared on behalf of the BPP and Rohatgi appeared on behalf of high priests.” In the same letter it is stated, "Mistree and Mehta were also present at the time of the hearing.”
Clearly: 1. Two senior counsels were chosen by us, one to represent the BPP and the other to represent the high priests; 2. No ‘legal collusion’ was ever considered then, more so as Karanjawala and Company are the advocates on record for both the BPP and the high priests and in fact for the other intervenors as well; 3. No board resolution was passed then, for the appointment of any senior counsels as that has not been our practice; 4. All the costs incurred in Delhi for both the senior counsels and the memo of fees for Karanjawala and Company have been met and honored from the beginning with no discussions whatsoever, in the BPP board; 5. When necessary only one senior counsel has appeared on our behalf and often when adjournments were mutually agreed upon by both sides, then only Ghandy appeared for us in the SC, upon the advice given to us by our advocate on record in Delhi. And sometimes an advocate from Karanjawala’s office appeared on our behalf, when it was not deemed necessary for Percy to go to Delhi. In short, whenever litigation costs could be saved, all efforts were made in that direction, more so in current times.
Therefore your demand that the board has to approve of Rao being appointed as a counsel in the renegade priests issue is malafide and politically motivated.
My email (dated July 15, 2014) to Karanjawala was sent, with the concurrence of the majority of the board and therefore your permission was not required. As Rohatgi can no longer appear in the renegade priests matter, Rao was chosen in his place by our legal team in Delhi. Moreover, Yazdi Desai and I met our auditor, and having personally explained our case to him, he cleared the payment to Rao as well. Please do not create a bogey when none exists.
‘Slyness and cunning’ are your key attributes. You are a control freak who has sullied the name of the BPP beyond measure, first in 2006, when four prominent trustees resigned because of your lack of transparency and Machiavellian behavior. You are now under a cloud of financial impropriety, in which four incumbent trustees have stood up to all your threats and pressure, and have sought your suspension from the BPP board, for all the irregularities that you have committed over the last 20 years. The skeletons are beginning to tumble and even your ill-gotten gains will not spare you the adage of being the worst chairman in the history of the BPP, more so when history judges your track record in the BPP...
I do not wish to comment on the many personal, slanderous remarks that you have made against me and my family. I am treating it with the contempt it deserves, although I am not in the least surprised by your remarks, considering your background.