Mumbai: In a set back to Ramesh Sippy, the Bombay High Court has dismissed his application claiming 1/5th right in a flat on Altamount Road in South Mumbai and 500 shares of Sippy Films Pvt Ltd including rights to 27 films, observing that the film producer’s assertions seem “tenuous” and that has not approached the court with “alacrity”.
The court, while refusing to grant him interim relief, said that it was not inclined to show him any indulgence as he has been “shifting” his stands since 2012.
Sippy, director of superhits like Sholay, Seeta aur Geeta, Shakti, as an interim relief had filed an application seeking to appoint a court receiver for the movable and immovable properties alleging that his three nephews are “illegally, exclusively enjoying” the assets of his late father GP Sippy.
“This Court has gathered an impression, on the basis of the pleadings in the present case, that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with alacrity,” observed Justice Manish Pitale on April 12.
Sippy Filed Case Against Family Members In 2023
Sippy, who is the only surviving sibling of the four brothers and one sister, had filed a suit in 2023 against his one sister-in-law, nine nephews and nieces. He had also added Sippy Films and two film distribution companies as respondents. He claimed his share in the flat 5/B and rights of 27 films.
He had earlier filed a suit in 2012 claiming right to adjoining flat 5/A in Shree Vijaya Bhavan on the Altamount Road. The suit is pending. The flats were purchased by his late father GP Sippy. Earlier too there were several rounds of litigation.
His advocate Shanay Shah argued that the film produced learnt only in 2013 about a will made by his father in 2007 in favour of his mother, Mohini Sippy, and a “purported will” she executed in July 2009 in favour of his brother, Suresh Sippy.
Advocate Archit Jayakar, appearing for the defendants, argued that Sippy has been taking contradictory stands.
Refuting the allegations, Sippy claimed that he filed the suit last after he learnt in november 2022 of a relinquishment will filed by Suresh Sippy in 2016.
The court, however, noted that the stated stands taken by Sippy in previous 2012 suit and also the caveat filed in the probate petition of his nephews; and now the stand taken in the present suit, “prima facie give an impression that the plaintiff (Sippy) has been shifting stands”.
“The explanation for asserting cause of action in the manner in which it has been asserted in the present suit, appears to be tenuous. In such a situation, this Court is not inclined to show indulgence and exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff (Sippy),” the judge added.
The court also took note of the fact that flats 5/A and 5/B were combined and the nephews were in possession of the same.
Sippy’s interim plea in 2012 over flat 5/B where he submitted his share certificate was rejected even by the Supreme Court. The apex court had, however, granted him liberty to file a review before the HC which he did in 2018. The review was disposed of by a division bench of the HC after Sippy said that he will file an interim application in the pending suit.
