The Bombay Excessive Court docket has refused to grant movie producer-cum-director Ramesh Sippy’s plea for the appointment of a courtroom receiver in a property dispute.
As per the most recent report from Bar and Bench, the director had filed an interim plea searching for the appointment of a courtroom receiver. Reportedly, via the interim plea, he had sought the appointment of the courtroom receiver on flat no.5/A in Shree Vijaya Bhavan, the shares and rights within the 27 movies.
The report additional added that the filmmaker contended that Sippy Movies Pvt. Ltd. and its administrators have been illegally using these belongings. Nonetheless, Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, discovered inadequate proof from Sippy to help his considerations concerning the defendant disposing of the flat.
Moreover, the courtroom famous that the authorized heirs of Sippy’s siblings, together with the corporate itself, had been asserting possession rights over the 27 movies for a considerable interval.
Beforehand, Sippy had filed the swimsuit in 2023, claiming that after the deaths of his father in December 2007 and his mom, Mohini Sippy, in June 2010, he was entitled to 1/fifth share of their property, together with the authorized heirs of his 4 siblings—three brothers and a married sister.
Nonetheless, his father made a will and endowed his complete property to their mom, who obtained letters of administration to manage the property. Later, she too made a will and bequeathed the property to his deceased brother, Suresh.
In the meantime, the case is ongoing, and additional developments are anticipated.
As per the most recent report from Bar and Bench, the director had filed an interim plea searching for the appointment of a courtroom receiver. Reportedly, via the interim plea, he had sought the appointment of the courtroom receiver on flat no.5/A in Shree Vijaya Bhavan, the shares and rights within the 27 movies.
The report additional added that the filmmaker contended that Sippy Movies Pvt. Ltd. and its administrators have been illegally using these belongings. Nonetheless, Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, discovered inadequate proof from Sippy to help his considerations concerning the defendant disposing of the flat.
Moreover, the courtroom famous that the authorized heirs of Sippy’s siblings, together with the corporate itself, had been asserting possession rights over the 27 movies for a considerable interval.
Beforehand, Sippy had filed the swimsuit in 2023, claiming that after the deaths of his father in December 2007 and his mom, Mohini Sippy, in June 2010, he was entitled to 1/fifth share of their property, together with the authorized heirs of his 4 siblings—three brothers and a married sister.
Nonetheless, his father made a will and endowed his complete property to their mom, who obtained letters of administration to manage the property. Later, she too made a will and bequeathed the property to his deceased brother, Suresh.
In the meantime, the case is ongoing, and additional developments are anticipated.
When Dharmendra revealed that Amitabh Bachchan bought Jai’s position in ‘Sholay’ due to him: ‘Socha chalo bechare ko de do’
