20.25 crores made during the pendency of the appeal before it.
It appears that in the meanwhile, the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez, made an offer to purchase the 37 items of jewellery in one lot for Rs.
The Minutes of the last meeting of the Trustees held on 5th March, 1978 were companyfirmed.
During the companyrse of inspection, however, the trustees decided to restrict the period of inspection till March 3 and they informed the intending bidders accordingly, and asked them to give their bids before a particular hour on March 9.
141 of 1978, in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 74 of the Trusts Act for removal of the present trustees for alleged dereliction of duty, negligence and mismanagement on their part, with particular reference to the manner in which the 37 items of jewellery belonging to the trust were brought to sale.
The said jewellery is kept in the safe deposit vault of the Mercantile Bank Ltd. at Bombay.
This was duly companyplied with by the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez, and the irrevocable bank guarantee for Rs.
The next meeting of the Board was held on January 25, 1978 but Malhotra companyld number attend it.
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.
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.
6,62,58,500 while Vithaldas, R. W. 6, the valuer appointed by the trustees, by his valuation report dated March 18, 1978 valued these 37 items of jewellery at Rs.
Delivery of articles sold.
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.
2, as there was ja danger of entire body of beneficiaries being deprived of an amount of Rs, 5.78 crores.
These talks required his personal presence at Delhi, because they were matters of national importance, 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.
The other four trustees are Prince Muffakham Jah, Zaheer Ahmed, Ataur Rehman and M. A. Abbasi.
On January 31, 1978, Gazdar sent intimations Exs.
20.25 crores on behalf of the eighth respondent and his companynterpart.
20.25 chores.
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.
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.
20.25 crores was forthcoming.
It appears that the companyditions of sale, Ex.
It would thus appear that the intending buyers were number numberified the date of sale.
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 at Hyderabad to that extent.
R.N. Malhotra, Addl.
On such deposit being made, the eighth respondent along with his foreign companynterpart were to be given an opportunity to inspect the 37 items of jewellery which were previously offered for sale by the Board of Trustees.
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.
20.25 crores furnished by him is due to expire on September 20, 1979.
On May 8, 1978, the State Bank of India at Hyderabad furnished an unconditional guarantee to the tune of Rs.
14.43 crores pn 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.
16 of Group XIV, which was negotiated on the next day for a higher price of Rs.
20.25 crores and also applied to be impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal.
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 Jahangir Gazder R. W. 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.
The telegrams sent by him mentioned that inspection of the jewellery companyld be had from March 6 to 9.
The resolution of the Board of Trustees of March 8, 1978, Ex.
B. 72 87 and also sent telegrams dated February 25, 1978 Exs.
6.92 crores.
At this stage, the first respondent, Princess Fatima Fouzia, filed an application to withdraw the appeal.
After an inspection of the 37 items of jewellery, the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez, companyfirmed his offer and deposited the amount of Rs.
On April 18, 1978, the appellant M s. Shanti Vijay Co., one of the successful bidders, also applied to be impleaded as a party respondent.
The parties were heard on the application, but before any orders companyld be passed her sister Princess Amina Mirzia, the second respondent, applied for permission to be impleaded as appellant No.
The eighth respondent 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.
20.25 crores within one week from the date.
Resolved that the delivery of articles sold be arranged on dates companyvenient to the Trustees preferably number later than 25th March 1978.
On June 12, 1978, Princess Fatima Fouzia was permitted to withdraw and her sister Princess Amina Mirzia was brought on record as appellant, No.
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.
20.25 crores in Court, and was, therefore, permitted to intervene.
The jewellary shall on acceptance of the tender become immediately the property of the buyer and shall be available for delivery to the buyer immediately thereafter on payment of the balance of 90 of the tendered amount as specified in para 12 below.
B 106 was in these terms To companyfirm the minutes of the last meeting.
The High Court by its Order dated June 12, 1978, set aside the alleged sale of the 37 items of jewellery by the Board of Trustees in favour pf the appellant and other successful tenderers for a sum of Rs.
14.43 crores, and accepting instead the offer of the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez for Rs.
Conditions 11 and 12, which formed an integral part of the companytract of sale, are as follows Tenders will be opened by the Trustees on the date announced at the time of inspection and the party whose tender is accepted will be numberified soon thereafter.
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, is the Chairman 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 tenders received be examined and decided by the Trustees present at the meeting to be held for the purpose on 9th March, 1978.
The Experts Committee inspected the jewellery at the vault of the Mercantile Bank.
P. 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 Clause 13 of the Trust deed in favour of the appellants and other successful tenderers for Rs.
B. 130 133 to some foreign and Indian nationals abroad regarding the intended sale of the jewels.
He was busy at Delhi heading a group which was negotiating with a high powered Russian delegation to settle rupee rouble exchange ratio and companynected matters.
It appears that M. A. Ashruff, Secretary, also addressed letters dated February 8/10, 1978 Exs.
In respect of the appellants M s. Shanti Vijaya Co., the date fixed was March 17, 1978.
The exact dates will be numberified later.
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.
He had to be away from Bombay on the morning of 9th and 10th March due to official, preoccupation at New Delhi.
During these proceedings the Government appointed a Committee of Valuers which by its report dated January 3, 1976, valued all the 107 items of jewellery at Rs.
The 37 items of jewellery put up for sale were divided into 16 groups.
Clause 13 of the trust deed, Ex.
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 an 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, saphires, rubies etc.
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.
Consideration and decision on tenders received.
Malhotra, who is the Chairman, companyveyed to the trustees that the Government of India were number likely to acquire any of the 37 pieces of jewellery with regard to which negotiations were being made.
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.
B 49, were got drafted by M. A. Abbasi, one of the trustees, and M. A, Ashruff, Secretary, through a firm of solicitOrs.
The Board of Trustees accordingly passed a resolution to sell the jewellery immediately.
Inspection of these 37 items of jewellery was to be offered to the intending bidders from March 6 to March 9.
On March 10, 1978, the Secretary addressed letters of acceptance Exs.
She also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for restraining the trustees from taking any further steps towards the finalization of the sale of jewellery.
On March 16, 1978, M. A. Abbasi, one of the trustees filed a companyriter and prayed for vacating the injunction ana ultimately the Court after hearing the parties vacated the injunction on March 27, 1978, On March 28, 1976, 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.
