The Bombay High Court will hear in December a plea filed by Abhinav Bharat Congress, led by researcher and activist Prof. Pankaj Phadnis, seeking to recover over USD 9,186 million allegedly meant for public causes. The petition alleges that industrialist Nusli Wadia has been “orchestrating a ...... conspiracy since 1972” in connection with the estate of Edulji Framroze Dinshaw (EFD) and its shareholding in Tata Sons.
Urgent Hearing Cited
The special bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Sarang Kotwal took the matter on board last week, after Phadnis sought an urgent hearing citing “recent developments in the media” concerning the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group’s demand for the public listing of Tata Sons.
Cy Pres Fund Concerns
The application contends that such developments threaten what Phadnis describes as a “Cy Pres fund” charitable assets allegedly traceable to shares of Tata Sons held through Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd, an SP Group entity. The plea urges the court to protect these assets and restrain Tata Trusts and related entities from creating third-party rights until the matter is settled in courts in India and New York.
Explanation of Cy Pres Doctrine
A “Cy Pres” fund refers to charitable funds redirected by courts under the Cy Pres doctrine meaning “as near as possible” when the original purpose of a gift or trust becomes impossible or impractical.
Petitioner’s Claims Against Tata Sons
Phadnis has sought that the court “correct the fraud played on this High Court” and ensure that the 8.695% stake of the SP Group in Tata Sons is used to create a Cy Pres fund “for the benefit of people of India and the United States.” The petitioner also believes that “Mr. (Ratan) Tata, being an ethical man, opposed public listing on the ground that it would destroy the compassionate capitalism practised by the Tatas for over a century.”
Nusli Wadia Denies Allegations
In response, Nusli Wadia’s attorney, Shankar Kanhere, filed an affidavit strongly denying all allegations, terming the petition “false, misconceived, and an abuse of process.” The affidavit stated that “virtually every issue raised in it has either already been decided by courts of competent jurisdiction or involves disputed questions of fact entirely baseless.”
Arguments Against Petition’s Validity
The reply affidavit argued that the petition “does not disclose any enforceable legal right in the Petitioner” and attempts to convert a private contractual dispute into a writ matter. It added, “The Petition is filed by a non-entity. It is not maintainable.” The affidavit further termed Phadnis’s claims “motivated” and accused him of misleading the court, seeking dismissal with exemplary costs.
Multiple Respondents Involved
The plea, which also seeks a court-monitored investigation, involves 15 respondents including the Union of India, Registrar of Companies, Tata Sons Pvt Ltd, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd, and others.
The matter will next be heard in December.
