In December 2023, the High Court ‘modified’ the September 2020 judgment. It ruled that the APL cannot jump steps to directly take (decisions) or pre-empt business decisions in respect of the entities not under their direct control.
The Division Bench had, however, clarified that as and when any major decision is required to be taken regarding transactions/transfers of the shares themselves, the APL mandatorily has to approach the testamentary court for necessary orders.
While referring to the ‘influence’ of Priyamvada over the entire group of companies, it had said that her powers were restricted to her ownership of the particular shares in different companies.
It had added that the APL must not confuse the expression ‘controlling interest’ with ‘personal influence’ of Priyamvada.
Therefore, the ‘controlling interest’ (of the APL) would only mean the ‘heritable incidental rights’ such as voting rights, rights to participate in shareholders’ meetings etc.
As regards the contention of the APL passing ‘drastic orders’ compelling or pressuring the companies of the group to implement the same, the Court emphasised that the APL is not an adjudicating authority.
The High Court had made it clear that the origin of the dispute is the will in question, which has been long pending and must be expeditiously decided.
Source: Barandbench
