The Minutes of the last meeting of the Trustees held on 5th March, 1978 were companyfirmed.
From the Judgment and order dated 12 6 78 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in appeal against order No.
B. 106 was in these terms To companyfirm the minutes of the last meeting.
5.78 crores.
She also filed an application for temporary injunction under ord.
B.72 87 and also sent telegrams dated February 25, 1978 Exs.
It appears that A. Ashruff, Secretary, also addressed letters dated February 8/10, 1978 Exs.
7 to 17 in the appeal and they were given an opportunity to substantiate their claim and they, as well as the opposite parties, filed their statements and companynter statements touching upon the question of the factum, validity and propriety of the alleged sales effected by the Board of Trustees of the 37 items of jewellery for Rs.
E Consideration and decision on tenders received.
Resolved that the tenders received be examined and decided by the Trustees present at the meeting to be held for the purpose on 9th March, 1978.
B.88 100 to 29 reputed dealers, seven of whom were jewellers from abroad and the remaining 22 in the companyntry, as per list Ex.
20.25 crores and also applied to be impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal.
13 of the trust deed in favour of the appellants and other successful tenderers for Rs.
And further resolved that in case such Trustees did number find a satisfactory offer or offers in respect of any of the items offered for sale, they may reject the tendered offers and negotiate the sale of any item with any party for a higher price.
In the present case, the learned Judges of the High Court in their judgment dated February 28, 1979 have very carefully examined all the evidence and have reached a result unfavourable to the appellants.
3 in CA 1269/178.
The letters of the Secretary as far as material, read The unique companylection of the fabulous oriental jewellery of the once richest man of the world, HEH the Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar, the erstwhile premier prince of India, is companying up for sale in Bombay sometime during the first or second week of March 1978.
20.25 crores furnished by him is due to expire on September 20, 1979.
The eighth respondent C having furnished the bank guarantee, the High Court directed that inspection of the jewellery be granted to him and his companynterpart at the Mercantile Bank Ltd. On May 27, 1978.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J. In these appeals, one of which is by special leave and the other two on certificate, brought from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated June 12, 1978, the short question is whether that Court was justified in setting aside the alleged sale of 37 items of jewellery belonging to H.E.H. the Nizams Jewellery Trust, effected by the Board of Trustees, in exercise of their discretionary power of sale under cl.
1978, the appellant M s. Shanti Vijay Co., one of the successful bidders, also applied to be impleaded as a party respondent.
It appears that in the meanwhile, the eighth respondent, Peter Jansim Fernandez, made an offer to purchase the 37 items of jewellery in one lot for Rs.
On March 16, 1978, M. A. Abbasi, one of the trustees filed a companynter and prayed for vacating the injunction and ultimately the Court after hearing the parties vacated the injunction on March 27, 1978.
20.25 crores was forthcoming.
14.43 crores in favour of the appellants and other tenderers.
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, is the Chair man of the present Board of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizams Jewellery Trust, as a numberinee of the Government of India.
Resolved that the delivery of articles sold be arranged on dates companyvenient to the Trustees preferably number later than 25th March 1978.
We, therefore, proceeded to hear the appeals on merits.
On May 8, 1978, the State Bank of India overseas Branch, Bombay furnished an unconditional guarantee to the tune of Rs.
On the 8th of March, Malhotra was present throughout, at the Mercantile Bank Ltd., and there was also a meeting of the Board of Trustees.
On March 28, 1978, the first respondent, Princess Fatima Fouzia filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and on April 13, 1978 the High Court directed that the status quo ante be maintained.
On January 31, 1978, Gazdar sent intimations Exs.
The exact dates will be numberified later.
n A. Zaibala, Dhimant Thakkar, P. H. Parekh and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner in SLP 3649/78.
Delivery of articles sold.
20.25 crores made by him before the High Court for, the purchase of the 37 items of jewellery, and instead gave an undertaking to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee by the State Bank of India overseas Branch Bombay to that extent.
The resolution of the Board of Trustees of March 8, 1978 Ex.
On April 18.
20.25 crores.
At this stage, the first respondent, Princess Fatima Fouzia, filed an application to withdraw the appeal.
14.43 crores, and accepting instead the offer of the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez for Rs.
14.43 crores on the ground that there was numberconcluded companytract between the parties and instead accepted the offer of the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez, for the sale of the aforesaid jewellery to him for Rs.
He had to be away from Bombay on the morning of 9th and 10th March due to official preoccupation at New Delhi.
141 of 1978 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under s. 74 of the Trusts Act for removal of the present trustees for alleged dereliction of duty, negligence and mismanagement on their part, with particular .
He companyld number leave Delhi from March 9 to 23, during which period the talks companymenced earlier on January 28, 1978, had entered a crucial stage.
P. Verma, B. V. Singh, Anil B. Diwan, B. Parthasarathi and J. V. Suryanarayan Rao for Respondent in CA 1105/78.
20.25 crores made during the pendency of the appeal before The facts of the case, so far as they are material, are number number in dispute, and are as follows The late H.E.H. Nawab Mir Sir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, the Nizam of Hyderabad, by ah indenture dated March 29, 1951, created a trust called H.E.H. The Nizams Jewellery Trust, in respect of 107 items of extremely valuable, rare and priceless jewellery of exquisite design and beauty studded with emeralds, diamonds, sapphires, rubies etc.
The Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Malhotra was admittedly number present in Bombay on March 9, 1978 when the tenders were opened by the remaining four trustees.
A. Zaibala, Dhimant Thakkar, P. H. Parekh and Miss Kamlesh Bansal for the Petitioner in SLP 3648/78.
On March 10, 1978, the Secretary addressed letters of acceptance Exs.
This was duly companyplied with by the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez and the irrevocable bank guarantee for Rs.
The High Court by its order dated Jun, 12, 1978 set aside the alleged sale of the 37 items of jewellery by the Board of Trustees in favour of the appellant and other successful tenderers for a sum of Rs.
It would thus appear that the intending buyers were number numberified the date of sale.
The telegrams sent by him mentioned that inspection of the jewellery companyld be had from March 6 to 9.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NOS.
Inspection of these 37 items of jewellery was to be offered to the intending bidders from March 6 to March 9.
The appeals came up for hearing before the Court on August 18, 19?9 We request to say that though the appellants and other successful tenderers had nearly four months time, numberbetter offer than the one made by the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez, for Rs.
The other four trustees are Prince Muffakham Jah, Zaheer Ahmed, Ataur Rehmarr and M. A. Abbasi.
The Board of Trustees accordingly passed a resolution to sell the jewellery immediately.
He was busy at Delhi heading a group which was negotiating with a high powered Russian delegation to settle the rupee rouble exchange ratio and companynected matters.
The application was taken up by the Court on March 14, 1978, and the learned Judge on the same day, granted an ad interim injunction restraining the trustees from taking any steps to finalise the sale of the jewellery.
These talks required his personal presence at Delhi, because they were matters of national importance.
During the companyrse of inspection, however, the trustees decided to restrict the period of inspection till March 8 and they informed the intending bidders accordingly, and asked them to give their bids before a particular hour an March 9.
V. Gupte, S. T. Desai and A. Subba Rao for RR 4, 6 and 7 in C.A. 1105/78 and Appellant in CA 1269/78.
reference to the manner in which the 37 items of jewellery belonging to the trust were brought to sale.
In respect of the appellants M s. Shanti Vijay Co. the date fixed was March 17, 1978.
Rajni Patel, Malini Kapadia, P. G. Gokhale, B. R. Agarwala and Gujarat Co. for the Appellant in C.A. 1105 and for Respondent No.
1105, 1245 and 1269 of 1978.
B.54 65, to the appellants and other successful bidders, requiring them to pay the balance of 90 per cent of the tender price on or before March 21 and 22, 1978 as the case may be, and to take delivery of the items of jewellery purchased by them.
39, r. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for restraining the trustees from taking any further steps towards the finalization of the sale of jewellery.
The 37 items of jewellery put up for sale were divided into 16 groups.
8 in CA 1105/78, 1245/78 and 1269/78.
B.130 133 to some foreign and Indian nationals abroad regarding the intended sale of the jewels.
20.25 crores on behalf of the eighth respondent and his companynterpart.
16 of Group XIV, which was negotiated on the next day for a higher price of Rs.
Clause 13 of the trust deed, Ex.
The parties were heard on the application, but before any orders companyld be passed, her sister, Princess Amine Mirzia, the second respondent, applied for permission to be impleaded as appellant No.
3648 3649/78 In the matter of H.E.H. The Nizams Jewellery Trust.
The said jewellery is kept in the safe deposit vault of the Mercantile Bank Ltd. at Bombay.
On such deposit being made, the eighth respondent along with his foreign companynterpart were to be B. given an opportunity to inspect the 37 items of jewellery which were previously offered for sale by the Board of Trustees.
On March 9, 1978, the remaining four trustees are alleged to have opened the tenders and accepted all the highest tenders except in respect of item No.
N. Malhotra, Addl.
K. Sen, Anil B. Diwan, S. S. Hussaine, J. B. Dadachanji, K. J. John and A. G. Menses for Respondent No.
147/78.
20.25 crores within one week from that date.
Pursuant to the resolution of the Board of January 9, 1978, the Secretary of the trust applied to the Director of Archaeological Survey of India, for the grant of clearance for sale of the said jewellery and in companysultation with Dinshaw Jehangir Gazdar, RW 3, a numbered jeweller of Bombay, with the companycurrence of M. A. Abbasi decided upon the procedure to be adopted for the eventual sale of these 37 items of jewellery.
On March 10, 1978, the first respondent, Princess Fatima Fouzia, one of the beneficiaries and a grand daughter of the Nizam, instituted the present proceedings, being O.P. No.
S. Nariman, P. R. Mridul, B. Jaivalu, Dhimant Thakkar, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh, Miss Vineeta Caprihan and B. L. Verma for the Appellant in C.A. 1245/78.
The next meeting of the Board was held on January 25, 1978 but Malhotra companyld number attend it.
6.92 crores.
20.25 crores in Court, and was, therefore, permitted to intervene.
After an inspection of the 37 items of jewellary, the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez, companyfirmed his offer and deposited the amount of Rs.
In companypliance of the order of this Court, the High Court impleaded the other tenderers, respondents Nos.
On April 21, 1978, the High Court impleaded the appellant as a party to the appeal, and in order to test the bona fides of the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez, directed that he should deposit the amount of Rs.
On June 12, 1978, Princess Fatima Fouzia was permitted to withdraw and her sister Princess Amina Mirzia was brought on record as appellant No.
