Consent terms approved - II

It "is evident that the dispute basically arises out of the personal views of the [Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP)] trustees of the trust and on account of that various trustees are represented by various lawyers,” note Justices B. R. Gavai and A. S. Gadkari of the Bombay High Court (BHC) in their judgment dated April 30, 2015 giving their nod to the redevelopment of the Parsi Lying-In Hospital (PLIH). "We make it clear that fees of the lawyers engaged by independent trustees would not be paid from funds of the said trust. The respective trustee will bear costs of the same,” the justices added.
The litigation was initially between the trustees of the BPP and the Managing Committee (MC) of the PLIH Trust. The BPP trustees were opposed to the redevelopment proposal with Krimson Healthcare Private Limited put forward by the MC. The BPP filed a writ petition in the BHC against the MC and the Charity Commissioner (CC) which had granted permission for the redevelopment. Krimson had offered to lease the property located in the Fort area for a specialty orthopedic hospital.
Six of the BPP trustees then decided to withdraw the writ and signed consent terms between them and the MC. BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta opposed the consent terms and a day or two before the court hearing on April 30, BPP trustee Armaity Tirandaz also sided with Mehta, causing the justices to note, "Insofar as (Tirandaz) is concerned she has been changing sides. At one point of time she was in support of the majority of the trustees. However, from perusal of the affidavit filed by her today, it appears that she wants to support (Mehta)…

"It appears that the said Hospital is defunct for a period of 19 years. It further appears that after permission was granted by the CC on August 6, 2011, much progress has not been made in the matter of redevelopment of the said Hospital. We make it clear that we do not propose to go into the various disputed issues raised by the parties… as to which of the trusts is owner of the properties or as to which of the trusts has right to execute an agreement of the nature which is executed. It is pertinent to note that from the perusal of the scheme of the said trust… it would reveal that the decision of the said trust is to be taken as per the opinion of the majority. It will be relevant to refer to clause 32 of the said scheme which reads thus:
"‘Whenever any difference of opinion shall arise amongst or any decision is required to be taken by the trustees upon any question, matter or subject, the same shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the trustees and in the case of an equality of votes, by casting vote or second vote of chairman of the meeting at which the vote is taken. Such decision shall bind the rest and shall be adopted and acted upon’…
"It would appear from the orders passed by this Court dated March 3, 2015 that (Mehta’s counsel Chirag) Balsara had stated before the Court that there are better offers other than (those) given by (Krimson)... We had asked Balsara to point out any concrete offer of any party… and which is better than the offer… given... Balsara has stated that though better offers are available, however, in view of the pendency of litigation the same cannot be placed on record.”
The justices noted that should Mehta wish to appeal the decision he was free to do so. "We make it clear that if (Mehta) has any right to take recourse to such remedy as is available in law, disposal of the present petition in view of the consent terms, would not come in his way.”
A request for a stay was turned down. "Perusal of the record would reveal that no interim order of any sort was passed by this court (earlier),” the judges noted. "What has been done by us is accepting the consent terms… In that view of the matter, we do not find that request made by Balsara deserves to be considered. The same is rejected.”
Balsara, Negandhi Shah and Himaytullah appeared for Mehta and Tirandaz. Venkatesh Dhond, senior counsel (SC), Snehal Shah, Samsher Garud, Jaykar and Partners for Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai. (SCs) I. M. Chagla and F. E. Devitre, Naira Jeejeebhoy, Shrikant Doijode, Rashne Mulla-Feroze and Geetanjali Joshi, Doijode Associates for the MC. Kapil Moye, Manisha Virkhare, Vigil Juris appeared for BPP trustee Muncherji Cama. (SC) Navroz Seervai, Anuja Jhunjhunwala, Rohit Mangsule, Naik Naik and Company for Krimson.