The Bombay high court recently warned that it would appoint a court receiver on all the properties of film financier and post-production studio owner Yusuf Lakdawala if his son, Feroz, did not make a full disclosure of the same. Yusuf Lakdawala died of cancer while in Arthur Road jail on September 9, 2021. He had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.
Justice Milind Jadhav was hearing an application for interim reliefs by Lakdawala’s second wife, Sabina (49), in her pending 2022 partition suit. Her application said that Yusuf Lakdawala died intestate and left properties worth Rs. 1,000-1,500 crore, some of which were benami. She urged the high court to appoint her receiver and prohibit the defendants — Lakdawala’s children — from managing his properties and recovering monies from them.
Justice Jadhav said, the record indicates that there were several substantial properties controlled by Feroz but he had not given complete and adequate disclosure despite three orders of the high court. He added in his April 26 order, “Prima facie, this court is of the opinion that defendant (Feroz) is attempting to evade complete disclosure of the properties in his custody/possession/control to this court.”
Sabina as well as Lakdawala’s daughter told the court that Feroz alone was receiving proceeds from his father’s properties. They added that late Lakdawala’s 99% shareholding in most of the 15 companies was reduced to 19%, and Firoz had become the majority shareholder. They said that it was a cause for serious concern that by circumventing the law, Feroz was virtually usurping the rights of other co-sharers in the subject properties.
The judge posted the hearing for June 8 and directed Feroz to make a complete disclosure with supporting documents and bank statements. “In the event if defendant (Feroz) attempts to now circumvent the orders passed by this court as also today’s order, it is clarified that this court shall be constrained to appoint the court receiver in respect of all properties of deceased, known as well as unknown to the plaintiff (Sabina) and pass appropriate directions in that respect.” Justice Jadhav also said, the yardstick applicable to Feroz would also apply to properties which were under the control of Sabina and other defendants.