Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of the affairs of the Gopal Raheja Group, a real estate business originally established by Lachmandas Raheja and continued by his sons Gopal L. Raheja and Chandru L. Raheja, and later by Gopal L. Raheja’s family. After the death of Gopal L. Raheja in March 2014, his daughter Sabita Rajesh Narang (the plaintiff) filed Suit No. 777 of 2014 seeking declaration, partition, and other reliefs regarding the family assets. She claimed an equal undivided share under a written family arrangement dated 1995-1996, which had divided the larger K Raheja Group equally between Gopal L. Raheja and Chandru L. Raheja. She further alleged that defendant No. 1, her brother Sandeep Gopal Raheja, held shares in the group companies in a fiduciary capacity and that his unilateral actions after their father’s death violated her rights. In contrast, defendant No. 1 propounded an oral family arrangement of 1992, asserting that he was the sole beneficiary of the group assets and that the plaintiff had already received her reciprocal share. Pending the suit, the plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No. 1211 of 2014 seeking interim injunctions to restrain the defendants from excluding her from joint management, alienating assets or shares, and to appoint an administrator for the group’s properties. She also sought disclosure of assets and a stay on unilateral actions. The factual background showed that the family business had a complex history, with earlier separations and arrangements. Gopal L. Raheja had himself filed Suit No. 2366 of 2012 during his lifetime for declaration and specific performance of a proposed division, and an ad-interim order had been passed. After his demise, defendant No. 1 allegedly moved swiftly to transmit jointly held shares into his sole name without the consent of the plaintiff or defendant No. 5 (another sister). The plaintiff’s case relied on the 1995-1996 written arrangements and the correspondence wherein Gopal L. Raheja had denied any oral arrangement and characterized defendant No. 1’s shareholding as fiduciary. Defendant No. 1’s reply maintained that the 1992 oral arrangement was binding and that the plaintiff had no subsisting interest. The court heard detailed arguments from senior counsel for all parties, but the extracted portion of the judgment cuts off at the submission stage. Consequently, the court’s analysis, findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the final order on the interim reliefs are not available in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim reliefs of injunction, appointment of administrator, and disclosure in a suit for partition of family business assets, given the competing claims of family arrangements.
