Rashi Amit Mehra & Anr. vs Puneet Prakash Mehra & Ors.

The present Suit is filed by Rashi Amit Mehra and Adai Amit Mehra for partition of the properties and assets of Late Prakash Mehra and Late Neera Mehra and other reliefs.

The present Interim Application is filed by Puneet Prakash Mehra (Defendant No.1) and Sumeet Prakash Mehra (Defendant No.2) seeking the following reliefs :

Mr. Prakash Mehra, a renowned film personality, was married to Ms. Neera Prakash Mehra and had three children namely i) Sumeet Prakash Mehra (Defendant No.2) (ii) Amit Prakash Mehra (passed away on 28^th February, 2015) (iii) Puneet Prakash Mehra (Defendant No.1).

Neera Prakash Mehra passed away on 19^th August, 2007 and Prakash Mehra passed away on 17^th May, 2009.

In 2011-12, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, along with Amit Mehra, filed Testamentary Petition (L) No. 796 of 2011 for Letters of Administration of Neera Prakash Mehra, which were granted by this Court on 9^th January, 2012. The brothers i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Amit Mehra filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed of Prakash Mehra. They were granted Letters of Administration with Will annexed of Prakash Mehra. The three sons of Prakash Mehra had an equal share in all the assets as evidenced by the Letters of Administration.

As stated hereinabove, on 28^th February, 2015 Amit Prakash Mehra (the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and the father of Plaintiff No.2) passed away).

On 24^th February, 2016, Plaintiff No.1 filed a Petition for Letters of Administration of the estate of Amit Prakash Mehra. In the Schedule of Assets, the properties of Prakash Mehra were included as if Amit Prakash Mehra was the sole legal heir and sole beneficiary of the entire estate of Prakash Mehra, instead of claiming 1/3^rd of the assets left behind by Neera Prakash Mehra and Prakash Mehra.

In view of Plaintiff No.1 claiming all the assets of Prakash Mehra in the said Petition, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed caveats on 1^st September, 2016. It was only as a result of the said caveats that Plaintiff No.1 was constrained to amend Testamentary Petition No. 621 of 2016 stating that Plaintiff No.1 was entitled to only a 1/3^rd share in the estate of Prakash Mehra.

In light of this conduct of Plaintiff No.1, the Advocates for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 issued a Public Notice dated 3^rd December, 2016 inter alia stating that the Plaintiff is in no manner authorized to deal with the rights of the movies forming a part of estate of Prakash Mehra and that any party dealing with the Plaintiff shall do so entirely at its own risk. Plaintiff No.1 did not object to this Public Notice or publish any counter Notice.

Thereafter, Plaintiff No.1 sent her Advocates’ Notice dated 23^rd February, 2019 inter alia calling upon the Defendants to partition the estate of Prakash Mehra.

In April 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the present Suit. It is the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the Schedule of Assets mentioned in ‘Exhibit B’ to the Plaint contains discrepancies.

By an Order dated 25^th April, 2019 passed in Notice of Motion (L) No. 1126 of 2019 in the present Suit, this Court recorded that till further orders, the parties agreed to maintain status quo without prejudice to their right and contentions in the Suit. The said statement was accepted by this Court. By the said Order, the parties were also directed to make a disclosure.

On 9^th March 2021, a Preliminary Decree was passed in this Suit by this Court stating that the Plaintiffs have a 1/3^rd share and the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have a 2/3^rd share in the estate and inter alia appointed a Commissioner for Taking Accounts (“CFTA””) for completing an assessment of all the assets in the estate and for carrying out valuation thereof.

On 31^st March, 2021, the CFTA passed an Order directing the Plaintiffs and Defendants to file their respective Affidavits of disclosure.

By an Order dated 30^th September, 2021, this Court directed the Plaintiffs to file an Additional Affidavit of disclosure.

Further, by an Order dated 9^th January, 2024, this Court appointed a valuer to carry out the exercise of valuation of the properties forming a part of the estate with a specific direction to record details regarding encumbrances.

It is the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that Plaintiff No.1 will create additional third party rights in the movies of Prakash Mehra and further alienate the suit properties, including, but not limited to, Kings International Rooms.

It is further the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 have intentionally breached and flouted the status quo Order passed by this Court. In these circumstances, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present Interim Application.

In this Interim Application, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have sought reliefs in respect of Kings International Rooms and in respect of the rights in the movies specified in ‘Exhibit B’ to the Interim Application. The parties have separately addressed arguments on each of these issues. Hence, in this Judgement, I will separately deal with these issues.

Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that it is an admitted position that Room Nos. 805 and 806 in Hotel Kings International form a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra. Mr. Behramkamdin further submitted that it is also an admitted position that Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the Kings International Rooms and are generating income from them.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, on 28^th February, 2015, Amit Mehra (the husband of Plaintiff No.1, the father of Plaintiff No.2 and the brother of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) passed away. On 2^nd March, 2015, Plaintiff No. 1 became a director in Yashdhir Hotels Ltd. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that this action was taken within just 2 days of Amit Mehra’s demise with an intention to usurp the Kings International Rooms. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 learnt of Plaintiff No.1’s said directorship much later.

Mr. Behramkadin submitted that there were only two Rooms in Hotel Kings International i.e. Room No. 805 admeasuring 280 sq. ft and Room No. 806 admeasuring 665 sq. ft. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that till the Valuer made his Valuation Report, Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 had never mentioned any Room No. 812. The Additional Affidavit of disclosure dated 6^th October, 2021 of Plaintiff No.1 makes absolutely no mention of Room No. 812 nor do the Plaintiffs state that the area of Room Nos. 805 and 806 is less than what has been disclosed by them in the Plaint and in the Letters of Administration of Amit Mehra obtained by them.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were shocked to read the Valuation Reports which reveal that the carpet area of Room Nos. 805 and 806 had been reduced and a new Room No. 812 had been created from the area of these Rooms. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that the Valuation Report reveals the following changes in the Kings International Rooms:

ii) Room No. 806 (originally 665 sq. ft.) is now shown to be physically admeasuring only 234 sq. ft. carpet area.

iii) A new Room No. 812 (being 489 sq. ft.) has been created from the area of Room Nos. 805 and 806.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, despite the above mentioned facts, Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, in their Reply to the Interim Application, have taken a false stand that there was no breach of the status quo Order and that they had made no dealings in relation to the Kings International Hotel Rooms or any property forming a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra and Neera Mehra.

Further, Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Plaintiff No.1, in her Affidavit-in-Reply, had alleged that Prakash Mehra had entered into an understanding/ arrangement with Late Manmohan Singh Keer (Director of Kings International Hotels) regarding the entire 945 sq. ft area of the Kings International Hotel Rooms. Mr. Behramkamdin stated that Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 have not furnished any details in respect of the said understanding/ arrangement and as to how Room Nos. 805 and 806 were converted into three Rooms i.e. Room Nos. 805, 806 and 812.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that thus it was evident that Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were intermeddling with the suit properties by creating Room No. 812 from the area of Room Nos. 805 and 806 and had created third party encumbrances in respect of these Rooms without any authority of law and without obtaining the consent of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that actions of Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are in clear valuation of the status quo Order dated 25^th April, 2019 and have also caused harm to the estate of Prakash Mehra.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that a Court Receiver should be appointed by this Court in respect of the said Rooms for the following purposes :

ii) to enquire whether the requisite permissions from the authorities like BMC were taken for the creation of Room No. 812.

iii) enquire as to who is the owner of Room No. 812 by seeking the documents with respect to the same.

iv) enquire into the income generated from all the three rooms i.e. 805, 806 and 812.

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs, opposed the granting of any reliefs in respect of the said Rooms. Mr. Jagtap submitted that it is an admitted position that Room Nos. 805 and 806 form a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra and cumulatively have an area of 945 sq. ft. Mr. Jagtap stated that the same is mentioned in the Plaint in the present Suit.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have attempted to portray that Plaintiff No. 1 was inducted as a director of Yashdhir Hotels Ltd., within days of demise of Amit Mehra, with certain ulterior motives. Mr. Jagtap submitted that the said allegation is absolutely false and unjustified. In this context, Mr. Jagtap submitted that the directorship of Plaintiff No.1 in Yashdhir Hotels Ltd. is not relevant to the present partition Suit. Mr. Jagtap stated that, on 10^th June, 2009, Amit Mehra was first appointed as a director in Yashdhir Hotels Ltd. and continued in the said position till his demise on 28^th February, 2015, when a casual vacancy arose in the Board of Directors and the same had to be filled as per the requirement of law. Mr. Jagtap submitted that any casual vacancy is filled in terms of Section 262 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Section 161 (4) of the Companies Act, 2013) read with Articles 113 and 115 of the Articles of Association of the Company, which provides that the Board may appoint a director, which is to be approved in the next General Meeting. Plaintiff No.1 was appointed by the existing directors as “Director appointed in casual vacancy” w.e.f. 28^th February, 2015 and was subsequently inducted as a director on 30^th September, 2015.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that, pursuant to the Orders of this Court, Plaintiff No.1 has filed a comprehensive disclosure Affidavit along with all details of income from the said Rooms received in the bank account of Plaintiff No.1, along with a CA certificate with respect to certain suspense entries. Mr. Jagtap further submitted that the Plaintiff has also provided the ledger from Keer Hotels from 1^st April, 2014 to 31^st March, 2021.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that there is no separate Room No. 812 created and it is a part of Room No. 806 having a total area of 665 sq. ft. Room Nos. 812 and 806 are part and parcel of the same Room and no change has been made to the total area of the same. Mr. Jagtap further submitted that there is no change made to the original structure of the Room, which is evident from the original building plan, wherein there was always a wall in the middle of Room No. 806, which is a bigger Room, and was initially let out as a Suite in two parts, and always had two access doors.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that there was an oral understanding between Manmohan Singh Keer and Prakash Mehra, wherein the Rooms were utilized by the Hotel for its guests and proportional charges were paid. The same understanding continued between Keer Hotels and Mr. Amit Mehra, and, after he passed away, Plaintiff No. 1 has taken over the same.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that the ledger entry provided by Keer Hotels would clarify that the amount received from 1^st April, 2014 to 16^th February, 2015, i.e. during the lifetime of Amit Mehra, were also in the form of rentals.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that Plaintiff No.1 had no knowledge about the administration arrangement of the Hotel where Room No. 806 is numbered in two parts. The Rooms were being operated by Kings International Hotel and Mr. Sarabjit Singh was the only source of information regarding the Rooms. Therefore, Plaintiff No.1 was not aware nor was in a position to disclose regarding the same.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that a similar arrangement is made on every floor of the Hotel, including the 5^th and 6^th floor, where identical Rooms are created as 506 and 512 as well as 606 and 612.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that, on 16^th August 2025, Mr. Sarabjit Singh Keer had provided two vouchers from prior to the demise of Amit Mehra which would clearly show that Room No. 812 was in existence even during the lifetime of Amit Mehra. Mr. Sarabjit Singh Keer further submitted that the ledger entry provided by Keer Hotels would clarify that the amount received from 1^st April, 2014 to 16^th February, 2015, i.e. during the lifetime of Amit Mehra, was also the same and inclusive of Room No. 812, as no separate income was received.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that neither the Plaintiffs have ever allowed anyone nor they themselves have undertaken/carried out any material changes whatsoever, concerning the said Rooms in question, including tampering/ altering/ modifying its area, site plan, etc. and in fact have simply followed the previous arrangement in respect of Rooms admeasuring 945 sq. ft. built up area.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have primarily premised their Interim Application on the basis of the alleged observation of the Valuer in his Report dated 15^th May, 2024. Mr. Jagtap submitted that the valuer has not approached the Plaintiffs at any given point of time to inquire regarding the creation of Room No. 812 nor has he sought any explanation regarding the same. Mr. Jagtap further submitted that, although the valuer has indicated that there was no co-operation by the Plaintiffs, all documents, ledger and information available with the Plaintiffs was duly provided to the valuer and form part of the Valuation Report as well.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, that any encumbrances have been created in respect of the Rooms, is not correct. He submitted that the Plaintiffs have disclosed that the Rooms are used by the Hotel, as and when needed, and proportionate amount is given to the Plaintiffs. Mr. Jagtap submitted that this arrangement was in place prior to the demise of Amit Mehra and, therefore, the allegation of creation of encumbrances is without any merit. Plaintiff No.1 has merely stepped in place of her husband and started receiving amount of rentals which were used by her for day to day activities of herself and Plaintiff No.2. Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that there is no separate Room No. 812. The same is part of Room No. 806 itself and therefore there is no question of any separate share certificate in respect of Room No. 812. Further, as there is no alteration to the structure of the Room as per the floor plan itself, there is no need for any BMC permission for the same.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have attempted to portray that there is some collusion between Plaintiff No. 1, Yashdhir Hotels Ltd and Keer Hotels Pvt. Ltd. However, there is no such collusion.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have also made a false hue and cry regarding the amount in respect of the said Rooms being received in different accounts. Mr. Jagtap explained that, initially, the rentals were received by Amit Mehra in the account of “Adai Mehra Productions Pvt. Ltd”, which was of Plaintiff No.1 and Amit Mehra. After the unfortunate demise of Amit Mehra, the rentals in respect of the Rooms were received in the said account of “Adai Mehra Productions Pvt. Ltd”. However, in 2018, the financial advisor of Plaintiff No.1 suggested that, since the amount is not an income of the said company but is an amount which Plaintiff No.1 receives for her day to day personal expenses, it would be appropriate to receive the same in Plaintiff No. 1’s personal account, so as to avoid legal complication or liability for the company or for Plaintiff No.1. Therefore, the same was received in the account of Plaintiff No.1. Moreover, ‘Queen Interiors’ is the name of the proprietary concern of Plaintiff No. 1 used for the purpose of GST but the amount was always received in her personal account.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that it is the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that no accounts in respect of Room No. 812 have been submitted. In this context, Mr. Jagtap submitted that Room No. 812 is a part of Room No. 806 and the income received for Room No. 806 includes the income of Room No. 812.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that, for all the aforesaid reasons, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to any reliefs in respect of the Kings International Rooms.

It is an admitted fact that Room Nos. 805 and 806 in Hotel Kings International form a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra.

It is also an admitted position that the Plaintiffs are in possession of these Rooms and are generating income from them.

It is the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the Plaintiffs have violated the status quo Order dated 25^th April, 2019 passed by this Court in this Suit by creating a new Room No. 812 from Room Nos. 805 and 806.

It is also the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the Plaintiffs did not disclose the creation of Room No. 812 and the same was disclosed in the Valuation Report furnished by the Valuer appointed in this Suit.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 further allege that the said Rooms are in possession of Yashdhir Hotels/ Hotel Kings International Juhu and the Plaintiffs have not furnished any details of any arrangement/ agreement by which Yashdhir Hotels has come into possession of the said Rooms. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 further allege that Yashdhir Hotels is the owner of the building in which the Rooms are based and Keer Hotels is the shareholder, who owns most of the Rooms and runs the hotel in the building. It is the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that Yashdhir Hotels and Keer Hotels are run by the same party. Further, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have also submitted that, on 2^nd March, 2015 (two days after the passing away of her husband Amit Mehra on 28^th February, 2015), Plaintiff No.1 became a Director in Yashdhir Hotels with an intention to usurp the Rooms, which was not known to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 till much later.

Further, it is the submission of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the creation of Room No. 812 would diminish the estate of Prakash Mehra of which Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the rightful 2/3^rd owners.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have also alleged that the income generated from the said Rooms is fluctuating in nature and is not fixed.

In these circumstances, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have sought appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of the said Rooms.

In my view, there is no dispute that the said Rooms form a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra. During his lifetime, Amit Mehra was in possession of the said Rooms and was generating income from the same as per the rentals received from Keer Hotels.

The material on record shows that Room No. 812 is created from Room No. 806. However, the Plaintiffs have produced two invoices, one for the period 17^th December, 2014 to 23^rd December, 2014 and another for the period 23^rd February, 2015 to 25^th February, 2015 in respect of Room No. 812. These clearly show that Room No. 812 was in existence during the lifetime of Amit Mehra (who passed away on 28^th February, 2015) and was not created by the Plaintiffs, as alleged by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, this cannot be a ground for appointing a Court Receiver due to the conduct of the Plaintiffs, as sought by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The same cannot also be considered as a violation of the status-quo Order which was passed on 25^th April 2019.

As far as disclosure by the Plaintiffs of Room No. 812 is concerned, it is the case of the Plaintiffs that they were not aware of the same. The case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is otherwise. In my view, considering that the Plaintiffs were receiving rentals from the said Rooms, it is implausible that the Plaintiffs were not aware about the existence of Room No. 812. In my view, the Plaintiffs ought to have disclosed the same. However, this non-disclosure cannot be a ground for appointing a Court Receiver in respect of these Rooms, especially since Room No.812 was created in the lifetime of Amit Mehra.

As far as Plaintiff No.1 becoming a director of Yashdhir Hotels is concerned, as submitted by Mr. Jagtap, on 10^th June, 2009, Amit Mehra was appointed as a director in Yashdhir Hotels and continued in the same position till his passing away on 28^th February, 2015, when a casual vacancy arose in the Board of Directors and the same had to be filled as per the requirement of law. As submitted by Mr. Jagtap, Plaintiff No.1 was appointed by the existing directors as “Director appointed in causal vacancy” w.e.f. 28^th February, 2015 and was subsequently inducted as a director on 30^th September, 2015. In my view, Plaintiff No.1 becoming a director in Yashdhir Hotels in place of her husband is not in any manner in violation of the status-quo Order. Except for making bare allegations that the Plaintiffs have colluded with Yashdhir Hotels, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not been able to furnish any proof in this regard. I am inclined to accept the submission of the Plaintiffs that there was an oral understanding between Manmohan Singh Keer and Prakash Mehra whereby the Rooms were utilized by the Hotel for its guests and proportional charges were paid. The same understanding continued between Keer Hotels and Mr. Amit Mehra. After the passing away of Mr. Amit Mehra, Plaintiff No.1 stepped into his shoes and has taken over the same. In these circumstances, Plaintiff No.1 became a director of Yashdhir Hotels Ltd. and also started receiving rentals in respect of the said Rooms. This also cannot be a ground for appointing a Court Receiver.

Further, in my view, creation of Room No. 812 would not diminish the estate of the deceased because there is no alteration to the structure of the Room, as per the floor plan, which would require any permission from the BMC.

Further, as far as the income generated from the said Rooms is concerned, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 can be protected by directing the Plaintiffs to maintain accounts.

In my view, considering all the aforesaid and for the aforesaid reasons, no case has been made out for appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of the said Rooms by Defendent Nos. 1 and 2. In my view, the said Rooms, which form a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra, and in which Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have a 2/3^rd share, can be protected without appointing a Court Receiver by directing the Plaintiffs not to alienate or transfer the said Rooms. However, since the said Rooms have been let out to guests of the Hotel for many years, the said Order would not prevent the Plaintiffs from letting out the Hotel Rooms to the Hotel guests and earn rentals from the same. However, since Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have a 2/3^rd share in the said Rooms, the income generated from the said Rooms will have to be protected by directing the Plaintiffs to maintain accounts in respect of the said income.

Mr. Behramkamdin, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were seeking an injunction against the Plaintiffs from dealing with / alienating the rights and/or creating any third rights by entering into any documents i.e. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), assignment, agreement for the rights with respect to movies listed in Exhibit B to the present Interim Application.

Exhibit B to the present Interim Application reads as under:-

In respect of the movie rights, Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Defendants’ father Prakash Mehra was a renowned film producer who produced several movies under the banner of Prakash Mehra Productions. After the demise of Prakash Mehra, Letters of Administration were granted to his legal representatives, namely Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Amit Mehra (Late husband of Plaintiff No.1).

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that after the passing away of Mr. Amit Mehra, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 came to know that Plaintiff No.1 was making attempts to unilaterally deal with and alienate some of the movie rights without the consent of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. In these circumstances, on 3^rd December 2016, the Advocates for Defendant Nos.1 and 2 issued a Public Notice inter alia stating that Plaintiff No.1 is in no manner authorized to deal with the rights of the movies forming a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra and that any party dealing with Plaintiff No.1 shall do so entirely at its own risk.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, pertinently, till date, there is no denial or objection or response to the said Public Notice by the Plaintiffs or their Advocates.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, thereafter, in April 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the present Partition Suit against Defendant Nos.1 and 2. By an Order dated 25^th April 2019, passed by this Court, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property, including the rights in movies, and the parties were also directed to explore Mediation.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that the parties explored Mediation. However, on 4^th February 2020, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 received a letter from the Mediator dated 31^st January 2020, inter alia informing them that the Mediator would file a Mediation Failure Report.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Defendant No.1 was shocked to come across a Public Notice dated 31^st January 2020 issued by Advocate Ms. Swapnali Salunkhe, in Complete Cinema Magazine, to acquire the rights of a lot of 20 films, which included six films belonging to the estate of Prakash Mehra.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, from February 2020 onwards, multiple events transpired when Defendant Nos.1 and 2 took necessary legal steps in a bid to protect the rights in respect of the movies. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that it was pertinent to note that no steps were taken by the Plaintiffs to protect these valuable rights.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that in the following months of 2020, films forming a part of the Schedule of Assets of Prakash Mehra were illegally broadcasted. In these circumstances, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed Criminal Complaints.

Further, Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, around 21^st October 2020, Defendant No.1 was informed over phone by one Sucheta Burman, Head Legal of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Zee”), that Plaintiff No.1, along with her Advocate, had inter alia approached Zee in a bid to sell the rights and the titles of the movies forming a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra, despite the status-quo Order passed by this Court and without the consent of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The transcript of the audio conversation of Defendant No.1 with Sucheta Burman of Zee is annexed at Page 443 of the Interim Application.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, by a letter dated 28^th October 2020 addressed by the Advocate for Defendant No.1, the Plaintiffs were confronted with regard to information received regarding the Plaintiffs’ attempt to create third party rights in the movies. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that the Plaintiffs, through their Advocate’s letter dated 29^th October 2021, admitted to the wrongdoing by stating that Plaintiff No.1 had informed Zee, keeping the 2/3^rd share of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 aside. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that the said letter stated that the Plaintiffs would adequately respond to the allegations in future. However, no such response had been received by them till date.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Defendant No.1 learned in January 2025 that a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was made between the Plaintiffs and BizGifting Private Limited in or around May 2021. This was revealed by way of a Supplementary Chargesheet filed in the criminal proceedings and received by Defendant No.1 only on 21^st January 2025. The said MoU showed that Plaintiffs were willing to assign their rights in the movies for a consideration of Rs.24 Crores.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that the draft MoU between the Plaintiffs and BizGifting Private Limited in track mode shows that a similar agreement was drafted for Zee. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that hence it is clear that the draft MoU of Zee was being adopted with respect to BizGifting Private Limited also. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that this clearly showed that the Plaintiffs intended to breach this Court’s status-quo Order.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, in these circumstances, this Court be pleased to restrain the Plaintiffs by way of temporary injunction from dealing with / alienating the rights in movies specified in Exhibit B and/or creating any third party rights by entering into any documents / MoU, assignment, agreement or the like and further direct the Plaintiffs to issue a Public Notice stating that they have never dealt with or alienated the rights in the movies and/or they have not created any third party rights by entering into any document / MoU, assignment, agreement etc.,

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that the status-quo Order does not sufficiently protect the rights of Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Further, in the context of the movie rights, Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Plaintiff No.1 was always interested in grabbing the properties of the Mehra family and made attempts to usurp and grab a portion of the estate of Prakash Mehra.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that one such instance was in the Year 2011-12 when Plaintiff No.1 and Amit Mehra attempted to cheat Defendant Nos.1 and 2. They tried to create third party rights in the super hit movie “Zanjeer” by making a remake of the same without consulting Defendant Nos.1 and 2. They then engaged Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in frivolous litigation relating to the rights in the said film “Zanjeer”.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that after discussion between three brothers and Plaintiff No.1, there was an agreement between Defendant Nos.1 and 2, Plaintiff No.1 and Late Amit Mehra, inter alia, permitting one Adai Mehra Productions (wherein Plaintiff No.1 and Late Amit Mehra were Directors) to remake the film “Zanjeer”. It was agreed that Adai Mehra Productions would pay a one time royalty of around Rs.3 to 4 Crores to Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff No.1 and Amit Mehra initially made payments for few months as was agreed upon in the agreement. However, suddenly Defendant Nos.1 and 2 received a letter inter alia alleging that Prakash Mehra never had rights to the film “Zanjeer” and that such rights were only with the Writer Duo Salim-Javed. In the light of this conduct, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 terminated the agreement and filed a Section 9 Petition under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thereafter, disputes were referred to a sole Arbitrator.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, in the Section 17 Application filed before the learned Arbitrator, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 secured a stay order against Plaintiff No.1 and Amit Mehra. Plaintiff No.1 and Amit Mehra approached this Court in an Appeal seeking to set aside the said Section 17 Order and the same was varied by this Court. However, this was further challenged by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By its Order dated 23^rd April 2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that Adai Mehra Productions Private Limited was not to release the film “Zanjeer” and not to take any steps for promotion of the said remake and referred the matter back to the Arbitrator.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that, subsequently, in the Arbitration, Consent Terms dated 14^th June 2013 were entered into between Plaintiff No.1, Amit Mehra and Defendant Nos.1 and 2, by which it was inter alia agreed that Plaintiff No.1 and Amit Mehra unconditionally relinquished / gave up of their rights, title and interest of whatsoever nature in the remaking of the Hindi film “Zanjeer” in Hindi and Telugu and such rights would vest only with Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Payments were also made to Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that reliefs were sought in the present Interim Application because there was a danger or a threat to the estate as stated in Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that this danger or threat can, inter alia, be evidenced by the following.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that status-quo would mean not taking any action or doing any such thing to change the current state of affairs. This would include and mean that none of the 3 co-owners could sell or negotiate their rights. In support of this submission, Mr. Behramkamdin relied upon the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 1987 SCC (SUPP) 394.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Plaintiff No.1 has time and again been dealing with third parties for the said movie rights, which is wholly contrary to the status-quo Order of 25^th April 2019. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Plaintiff No.1’s actions of attempting to surreptitiously enter into draft MoUs are not permissible in light of the status-quo Order.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 believe that Plaintiff No.1 had previously entered into unscrupulous transactions and agreements and created third party rights about which Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are still kept in dark. This has led to the illegal airing of the Prakash Mehra movies in 2020.

Further, Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893, provide that, at the final hearing of the Suit, the Court may sell assets, instead of partitioning the same, in certain circumstances. However, if any party states that he or she wishes to purchase the shares of the other parties at a valuation which the Court may agree to, then such sale shall be ordered by the Court. Thus a party has a right to purchase the property prior to any third party who wishes to be a purchaser. In the present case, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have a right to purchase the Plaintiff’s shares at the final hearing of the Suit and thus there is no question of the Plaintiffs being allowed to negotiate with any third party for the alleged sale of the assets forming a part of the joint property.

Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that thus it is necessary that an injunction be granted against the Plaintiffs.

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs, opposed the granting of any reliefs in the present Interim Application.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that the twelve movies referred to in Exhibit B form a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra, and by virtue of the preliminary decree passed by this Court in the present Suit, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a 1/3^rd share in the same.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have attempted to portray that Plaintiff No.1 was dealing with the movie rights during the lifetime of Mr. Amit Mehra by referring to the dispute regarding remaking of film “Zanjeer”. Mr. Jagtap submitted that, however, these disputes were decided in the Arbitration Proceedings conducted in respect thereof.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that the Defendants have referred to the Public Notice dated 31^st January 2020 and Plaintiff No.1’s non response to the same. Mr. Jagtap submitted that Plaintiff No.1 did not respond to the said Public Notice as she had no occasion to read the same. Mr. Jagtap submitted that just because the Plaintiffs had not replied to the said Public Notice, the same would not amount to any acceptance on the part of the Plaintiffs of admitting to deal with the said movies.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that the allegations, regarding dealing with Zee in respect of the said films, do not carry the case of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 any further as no deal has been entered into by the Plaintiffs.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that the MoU produced by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 clarified that the Plaintiffs have specifically referred to the 2/3^rd share of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and have clarified that, prior to entering into any agreement for transfer of the rights of the Plaintiffs to the extent of 1/3 ^rd share, they would be required to obtain the permission of this Court by seeking a modification of the Order dated 25^th April 2019. Further, it is also stated that any attempt to transfer the 1/3^rd share of the Plaintiffs would be subject to right of pre-emption of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, as per Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

In this context, Mr. Jagtap submitted that mere negotiations do not amount to violation of the status-quo Order or creation of third party rights, more particularly when the same disclose the status-quo Order as well as the rights of co-owners.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were attempting to portray that Zee and BizGifting Private Limited were different entities. Mr. Jagtap submitted that the same was not correct as BizGifting Private Limited was introduced to substitute Zee. Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that the purported transcript, as referred to by Defendant Nos.1 and 2, regarding one Sucheta Burman, cannot be considered as evidence.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that the movies which formed a part of the estate left behind by Prakash Mehra and Neera Prakash Mehra were licensed during the period of 2007 to 2013 by Prakash Mehra and the amount was received by him during his lifetime. Thereafter, since 2013, Defendant No.1 has the access to the said movies and has not taken any steps to license the same or generate revenue, thereby creating a substantial loss to the estate of Prakash Mehra.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that the Plaintiffs have not generated any income from the said movies and that they are deprived of the access to the same. The negatives of the same are kept with one Romnard Labs, which is in exclusive control of Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to establish that Plaintiffs have breached the status-quo Order. Mr. Jagtap submitted that, in these circumstances, no case for grant of injunction was made out by Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Jagtap further submitted that the Plaintiffs have not violated the status-quo Order by discussing the MoU with Zee / BizGifting Private Limited as these discussions constitute mere negotiations and do not amount to breach of the status-quo Order. Violation of the status-quo Order occurs only when there is an act that alters the existing state of affairs. Mr. Jagtap submitted that, in the present case, neither any consideration has been exchanged nor any document is signed and/or transfer is initiated. In these circumstances, the status-quo remains intact and there is no attempt to create any third party rights by the Plaintiffs.

Mr. Jagtap submitted that a bare perusal of the MoU produced by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 makes it crystal clear that the Plaintiffs have categorically recognized and transparently disclosed the Defendants’ 2/3^rd share as well as that any transfer requires compliance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and prior modification of the status-quo Order by this Court.

Mr. Jagtap further submitted that the alleged telephone transcripts relied upon by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are inadmissible.

Further, Mr. Jagtap submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to any interlocutory reliefs as they have not approached this Court with clean hands.

In support of his submissions, Mr. Jagtap has relied upon the following Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in

A) Lal Bahadur Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2019) (6) SCC 441.

B) Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1720.

C) Amar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2011) 7 SCC 69

D) Tomorrow Land Limited Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another (2025) 4 SCC 19.

It is an admitted position between the parties that the rights of the movies set out in Exhibit B to the Interim Application belong to the estate of Prakash Mehra. Further, a preliminary decree has been passed by this Court in the present Suit as a result of which Defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 and Plaintiffs each have 1/3^rd right in the said movies.

It is the case of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 that, although a status-quo Order has already been granted in respect of the assets and properties which form a part of the estate of Prakash Mehra, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to an injunction against the Plaintiffs in respect of the movie rights because there is a danger or threat to the movie rights from the Plaintiffs.

The first reason given by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as to why there is a danger to the movie rights from Plaintiff No.1 is the inaction of Plaintiff No.1 pursuant to Advocate Swapnali Salunkhe’s Public Notice where anonymous third parties claimed rights in respect of some of these movies. In my view, mere inaction on the part of the Plaintiff No.1 does not, in any manner, show that there is a danger or threat to the movie rights from the Plaintiffs. I am unable to accept that, just because the Plaintiffs did not respond to the said Public Notice, the same should be interpreted to mean that the Plaintiffs had dealt with the rights in the said movies.

The second reason given by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as to why there is a danger or threat to the movie rights is the failure of Plaintiff No.1 to protect the movie rights when illegally broadcasted in 2020. Again, in my view, the failure of the Plaintiffs to protect the rights in the movies, which were illegally broadcasted in 2020, does not mean that there is a danger or threat to the movie rights from the Plaintiffs. It may, at the highest, amount to inaction or negligence on the part of the Plaintiffs but definitely does not amount to a danger or threat to the movie rights.

The third reason given by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for there being a danger or threat to the movie rights is that Plaintiff No.1’s actions, including email communication exchanged with Zee, showed that Plaintiff No.1 was negotiating to sell the rights of the movies to Zee. In my view, again the action of Plaintiff No.1 in negotiating with Zee in respect of movie rights in which the Plaintiffs also have a 1/3^rd share cannot be considered as a danger or threat to the movie rights. The Plaintiffs had not taken any action to actually assign or transfer the said movie rights to Zee or to any party and hence there cannot be any danger or threat to the movie rights.

The fourth reason given by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is the Plaintiff No.1’s suppression of entering into dealings with regard to the rights in the said movies as evidenced in the audio recording transcripts between Broker Kamal Mukut and Sucheta Burman. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Jagtap, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs, these transcripts cannot be looked at without there being any further evidence in respect of the same. At this stage, without the parties having led any evidence, the said transcripts would be of no use to Defendant Nos.1 and 2, and, in any case, cannot be a ground for granting any reliefs to Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

The fifth reason given by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that the Plaintiffs attempted to deal with these movie rights by entering into a draft MoU with one BizGifting Private Limited. In respect of this MoU, it is an admitted position that the Plaintiffs have not entered into the said MoU but only some drafts of the said MoU have been exchanged. However, one of the said drafts exchanged has been produced by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said draft MoU produced clearly refers to the status-quo Order dated 25^th April 2019 passed by this Court in the present Suit in respect of the said movie rights. Further, the draft MoU states that this Court has not vacated the status-quo Order dated 25^th April 2019 and that it would be necessary to seek modification of the said Order dated 25^th April 2019 passed by this Court so as to enable the transfer of the said movie rights. Further, the said MoU also states that, as per the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, other two co-owners, i.e. Defendant Nos.1 and 2, shall have a right to acquire 1/3^rd share of the Plaintiffs in the movies which are proposed to be transferred to BizGifting Private Limited. Thus, prior to seeking permission of this Court to modify the Order dated 25^th April 2019, a Notice under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would have to be addressed to Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Thus, even the draft MoU, which has been produced by Defendant Nos.1 and 2, clearly shows that the Plaintiffs had no intention of either violating the status-quo Order dated 25^th April 2019 passed by this Court or affecting the rights of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In these circumstances, in my view, it cannot be said that the exchange of that draft MoU created any danger or threat to the movie rights by the Plaintiffs.

The next reason given by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that, in the draft MoU with BizGifting Private Limited, a price of Rs.24 Crores was fixed for the Plaintiffs’ 1/3^rd undivided share in the movie rights, which is directly prejudicial to Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as the value is fixed without justification and without their consent. This argument also does not appeal to this Court as, firstly, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 would have a pre-emptive right in respect of the said 1/3^rd share at that price. Secondly, even if the Plaintiffs assign their 1/3^rd share for a particular price, the same does not bind Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to sell their larger 2/3^rd share at the same price.

In the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not been able to demonstrate that there is a danger or threat to the movie rights from Plaintiff No.1. Therefore, a blanket injunction cannot be granted against the Plaintiffs in respect of the movie rights. However, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have 2/3rd rights in the said movies, which also need to be protected. In my view, the interests of justice would be served and the equities would be balanced if an injunction is granted against the Plaintiffs from transferring or alienating the movie rights without the permission of this Court. In other words, if the Plaintiffs have, despite the status-quo Order, any intention of assigning / transferring the movie rights, they must do so with the permission of this Court. On such an application being made by the Plaintiffs, this Court, before passing any Order, would take into consideration the rights of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, including their rights under the Partition Act, 1893 and under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

In the light of my aforesaid findings, I have not dealt with any of the Judgements which have been referred to by the parties.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, and for the aforesaid reasons, following orders are passed.

a. The Plaintiffs are restrained by an injunction of this Court from alienating or transferring or creating any third party rights in respect of Room Nos.805, 806 and 812 in “Kings International Hotel”.

b. However, the aforesaid injunction would not prevent the Plaintiffs from letting out the Hotel rooms to Hotel guests and earn rentals from the same.