Court notice to 7 members of Baroda royals
The Baroda civil court on Tuesday issued contempt of court notice to 14 persons including the Royal family members in the Gaekwad Royal property dispute case and has directed them to remain present on October 15 before the court.

Out of the 14 facing contempt of court seven are of royal household. They are Mrunalini Devi Puar; Ranjitsinh Prabhatsinh Rao Gaekwad; Smarjit Ranjitsinh Gaekwad; Pramilaraje Khacchar (palace of Jasdan, Rajkot); Lalitadevi Kirdutt (Panchsheillnagar, Raipur); Satwa Sheilaraje Shivram Sawant Bhosle and Vasundararaje Mura Ghorpade.

The plaintiff Sangramsinh Gaekwad has alleged that despite the court order of status quo on all movable and immovable property of the Royal family court orders were not complied with. He further said that the owners of ‘Bandhini home store’ - the nationwide retail chain of home décor under the banner of Y.S. Holdings Private Limited, Ms Sangita Narain and Mr Yuvraj Narain are continuing with their commercial activities at Royal property in Mumbai.

Mr Sangramsinh’s advocate Mr Kailash Jethmalani informed The Asian Age, "Bandhini store is located at plot number 30 B at Juhu Tara road in Mumbai. Despite the court order of June 26, 2003 on maintaining the status quo on the property which was further extended on August 30, the commercial activity has not stopped.. Once, the status quo is issued, no alteration to the property can be made nor can it be sold or rented. However, Bandhini has violated these norms therefore notice have been issued against the owners."

"If found guilty, the court can attach the entire property of Bandhini and can also impose prison sentence for a maximum of three months. Similarly, the stalls selling firecrackers are also being installed at the Polo ground in Baroda. Ranjitsinh Gaekwad has provided the ground on rental basis to firecracker stall owners that is also illegal," he said.

It may be recalled that the court had passed order on August 30 nullifying the will and codicil made by late Rajmata Shantadevi Gaekwad. The court maintained that the will was illegal and void and ordered status quo on all immovable and movable Royal properties in Baroda and Mumbai till final disposable of the case.

Mr Sangramsinh had moved the court in 1991 after Rajmata Shantadevi had prepared the will that Mr Ranjitsinh claimed was illegal as per the Hindu Succession Act and that women cannot prepare preparing will as per the Royal family’s tradition.

The erstwhile ruler and the eldest son of Rajmata, Fatehsinh Gaekwad died in 1988 and Rajmata made a will after his death. Rajmata died in May 2002 but before that she made two codicils in the will in March - April ‘02. Mr Sangramsinh claimed that the codicils were fraudulent and alleged his elder sister Mrunalinidevi Puar of tampering the documents of will, as the signatures in various documents of will and codicils were not identical.

In the fresh notice issued by court, along with the Bandhini owners, Ms Mrunalinidevi Puar, Mr Ranjitsinh Gaekwad, the Cloover Constructions Private Limited who constructed shops at Juhu Tara road, some employees of Royal family, other members of Royal family and the firecrackers’ stall installing contractors in Baroda are summoned.

Interestingly, Mr Ranjitsinh Gaekwad has now appointed advocate Rohit Majmudar replacing advocate Avdhoot Sumant. Mr Sumant was in the limelight after he had put an application before Baroda court requesting to file the contempt of court against the National Human Rights Commission after the controversial Best Bakery cases verdict. The NHRC had condemned the way in which prosecution in the Best Bakery case was conducted which resulted in all the 21 accused being acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Similarly, Mr Majmudar was also the State defence counsel during the Nanavati Commission’s two day visit to Baroda for investigating the role of state during the Godhra carnage led last year’s communal riots in Baroda.

Republished from The Asian Age