Birla: A division bench of the Calcutta High Court decided on Thursday that the single-judge bench could not have meddled with the operations of the group’s companies, trusts, and societies, just over three years after the single judge’s order directing Harsh Vardhan Lodha’s removal as the chairman of the MP Birla Group.
In their ruling, the two judges referred to the contentious decision of the Calcutta High Court’s lone judge from September 18, 2020, saying, “There cannot be universal or dynamic injunction or direction affecting the future course of action of the companies from the Testamentary Court.” The bench continued, “the court could not have done so’merely because the testatrix (Priyamvada Devi Birla) could not have herself had taken such an action in law.”
Currently in charge of the estate of the late Priyamvada Devi Birla, the former chairperson of the MP Birla Group, who passed away on July 3, 2004, is a committee of three administrators. She had left her estate in a registered will dated April 18, 1999, to her advisor Rajendra Singh Lodha. Following her passing, Lodha assumed leadership of the organization, which brings in $1.8 billion annually.
The group’s commercial interests include the processing of guar gum, cables, jute, and cement. The organization also manages 12 hospitals and 11 schools under nonprofit organizations.
Many relatives of the late Priyamvada Birla contested his will, beginning a lengthy legal dispute that took place across several courts and legal forums.
Rajendra Singh Lodha passed away, and his son is Harsh Lodha.
The committee of administrators has been subject to various limitations in its operations since Thursday’s verdict. Over the past few years, the committee has made several decisions by 2:1 majority and has exerted pressure on MP Birla Group companies, trusts, and societies to carry out these decisions. There have been multiple attempts in the last few years to remove Lodha from his position as trustee and director of the MP Birla Group.
The administrators are not permitted to meddle in the internal affairs of businesses, trusts, or societies, as the two judges made clear in their decision. According to the division bench, the administrators’ authority only encompasses the shares that belonged to the late Priyamvada Birla.
