Four grandchildren have asked the court to direct all concerned parties not to deal with the properties and wealth mentioned in the 1998 agreement till it decides on the case
The Bombay High Court on Friday refused relief to Vijaypat Singhania’s Singapore-based grandchildren who have challenged a 1998 settlement agreement between Singhania, chairman emeritus and owner of the Raymond Group, and his estranged son Madhupati Singhania.
The four grandchildren — Raivathari, Tarini, Rasaalika and Ananya — had asked the court to direct all concerned parties not to deal with the properties and wealth mentioned in the 1998 agreement till it decides on the case.
However, Justice Gautam Patel dismissed the notice of motion of the grandchildren seeking this restriction. The HC will now decide on their suit in due course. According to that agreement, Madhupati and his family relinquished their share of wealth and property.
The grandchildren have now alleged that the settlement agreement ignored their rights as minors a claim which has been disputed by Vijaypat Singhania.
Vijaypat in a reply to the high court has said that the suits filed by his grandchildren did not show how ancestral property is involved in the agreement.
He also said that parents being “natural guardians” have a right to enter into an arrangement on behalf of their minor children. Singhania’s has also raised the issue of limitation as there has been a delay in filing of the suits by his grandchildren.
The grandchildren had sought rights to the Raymond brand, ancestral properties, real estate and other movable and immovable assets of the group.
On 9 February, Vijaypat Singhania transferred a 37.17% of stake in Raymond to his younger son Gautam Singhania.
The HC had on an earlier occasion pulled up Madhupati in connection with the misleading portrayal of his financial condition in court. The HC had pointed out about Mantra, a $4,50,000 yacht, parked at Marina Bay in Singapore (owned by Madhupati Singhania) and another yacht which Madhupati wanted to buy for $1.3 million. “You are firing a salvo from the shoulders of your children,” the court had commented.