Bombay High Court denies interim relief to Sholay director Ramesh Sippy in property dispute : Bollywood News

April 16, 2024 News जन मंथन

The Bombay High Court rejected filmmaker Ramesh Sippy’s request for a court-appointed receiver in an ongoing property dispute. The dispute centres on the inheritance of assets belonging to Sippy’s late parents [Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Sippy & Ors.].

Bombay High Court denies interim relief to Sholay director Ramesh Sippy in property dispute

According to a report by Bar and Bench, the Sholay director had filed an interim plea seeking the appointment of a court receiver. This receiver would have taken temporary control of a flat and 27 cinematograph films, which Sippy claimed fell intestate (without a will) upon his parents’ passing.

The filmmaker further contended that Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. and its directors were illegally utilising these assets. However, Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, found insufficient evidence from Sippy to support his concerns about the defendant disposing of the flat. Additionally, the court noted that the legal heirs of Sippy’s siblings, along with the company itself, had been asserting ownership rights over the 27 films for a substantial period.

The judge further stated, “Apart from this, the stand taken (by Sippy) in the present suit, appears to be different from the assertions made in the earlier proceedings initiated by Sippy. Therefore, he has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour.”

The veteran filmmaker’s request for a court receiver stemmed from a larger lawsuit seeking a declaration of his share in his deceased parents’ estate among the surviving legal heirs. He claimed to be the sole surviving child.

Filed in 2023, the lawsuit argues that the properties of his parents should be distributed between him and the legal heirs of his siblings. Sippy seeks a one-fifth share of the estate, including a flat in south Mumbai, 500 shares of Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd., and rights to 27 films produced by the company.

Advocate Shanay Shah, representing Ramesh Sippy, was briefed by Bachubhai Munim & Co. Advocates Archit Jayakar, Pooja Yadav, and Parita Mashruwala, representing the Sippy Films company and directors, were briefed by Jayakar & Partners.

The case is ongoing, and further developments are expected.

Also Read: Vipul Shah THUNDERS at The Kerala Story press conference: “Sholay mein Gabbar Singh villain hai. Does that mean Ramesh Sippy is against the Singh community? Singham Again had a Hindu preist as a villain. Why didn’t you raise your voice then?”