In a fresh development in the ongoing tussle in the Mehta family relating to control of Lilavati Hospital Trust, the Bombay high court has issued a contempt notice against five trustees for entering into financial transactions without prior sanction of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
The trustees of Lilavati hospital against whom contempt is being sought are Vijay Mehta, managing trustee, Sushila Mehta, Rekha Sheth, Niket Mehta and Dr AC Shah.
The notice was issued by justice Nishita Mhatre on September 11 on a petition filed by Charu Mehta, sister of Vijay Mehta, alleging that trustees have violated an earlier court order which asked them not to enter into any financial transaction without approval of Joint Charity Commissioner.
The notices are returnable in eight weeks.
The petition alleged that the trustees have entered into financial transactions by incurring payments running into crores of rupees to advocates and professionals without prior sanction of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
"Prima facie, in my view, payments made to advocates would constitute financial transactions with regard to the trust and therefore prior approval of the Joint Charity Commissioner is required to be obtained before such payments are made to the advocates", the judge noted.
"It appears five respondents have flouted the order passed by this court on September 9 last year and prima facie overreached the same by issuing cheques to advocates and other professionals", the judge further noted.
"The cheques have been issued after the order of September 9, 2008, admittedly without the prior approval of Joint Charity Commissioner although it prohibits them from entering into any financial transactions" justice Nishita Mhatre observed.
"It appears that the trust is not a party in many proceedings which are initiated by one group of trustees against the other. Prima facie, therefore, in my opinion, respondents have committed contempt", the judge noted.
Counsel for petitioner, Aspi Chinoy submitted that after the order of September 9 last year, a sum of Rs3.06 crores from the trust funds had been spent by five respondents for paying advocates to defend themselves in personal litigation without prior permission of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
Dinyar Madon, Counsel for respondent Vijay Mehta, said Joint Charity Commissioner had already framed charges against respondents on a complaint filed by petitioner. The allegation about respondents making payments to advocates from the trust funds had been agitated before Joint Charity Commissioner but he had refused to frame charge in this regard.
He said no payments whatsover have been made from the funds of the trust for the personal litigation of respondents against whom contempt action was being sought. Hence the contempt petition should be dismissed.
