The above was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kapilsehwar Singh v. Maharani Adhirani Kamasundari and Ors. APO No. 35 of 2021 With PLA No. 18 of 1963 was presided over by the Honourable Justices Harish Tandoni and Prasenjit Biswas on 23rd December 2022.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Later, there were disagreements over how to handle the estate of the aforementioned Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwara Singh Bahadur, and eventually, the Supreme Court was involved in the case. On March 27, 1987, a family settlement was made, and it was submitted to the Supreme Court as part of an ongoing case. A relevant clause in the aforementioned family settlement, which the Supreme Court accepted in an order dated October 15, 1987, stated that a committee of beneficiaries composed of Maharani Kamsunderi Devi, Rajkumar Subheshwar Singh, and one representative of the beneficiaries of the other branches, would be established for the distribution of the shares of the other properties and the administration of the estate.
This must be completed within five years, an extended period of time, or an additional length of time set by the court. Since the estate’s administration could not be finished within the first five years, a request for a time extension was made before the court, and the Supreme Court granted it by decision dated May 7, 1993, extending the time for a further three years.
Although the Supreme Court further extended the deadline, the family settlement’s implementation could not be completed, and in the end, the trustees under the stated family settlement filed an application with the Supreme Court for their dismissal.
Kapileshwar Singh, the appellant in this case, contested the aforementioned ruling in the current appeal on the grounds of both the imposition of costs and the discharge of the management committee.
JUDGEMENT OF COURT
Regarding the major problem, the management committee worked for more than ten years, and many actions were performed under the supervision and direction of the Special Officer. The claim made by one of the applicants that the management committee should be replaced does not seem to have been supported, nor can we see any reason in this respect. The removal of the management committee and the appointment of Special Officers to handle the estate should not be based on unsupported allegations.
Even though the meeting was held and the report was provided by the Special Officers designated in accordance with the contested order, we conclude that there was an insufficient basis to release the management committee. The section of the order that discharged the committee of management and appointed the three Special Officers is therefore revoked.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SAYANTANI RAKSHIT