The Bombay High Court has refused to grant film producer-cum-director Ramesh Sippy’s plea for the appointment of a court receiver in a property dispute.
As per the latest report from Bar and Bench, the director had filed an interim plea seeking the appointment of a court receiver. Reportedly, through the interim plea, he had sought the appointment of the court receiver on flat no.5/A in Shree Vijaya Bhavan, the shares and rights in the 27 films.
The report further added that the filmmaker contended that Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. and its directors were illegally utilizing 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.
Previously, Sippy had filed the suit in 2023, claiming that after the deaths of his father in December 2007 and his mother, Mohini Sippy, in June 2010, he was entitled to 1/5th share of their estate, along with the legal heirs of his four siblings—three brothers and a married sister.
However, his father made a will and endowed his entire estate to their mother, who obtained letters of administration to administer the estate. Later, she too made a will and bequeathed the property to his deceased brother, Suresh.
Meanwhile, the case is ongoing, and further developments are expected.
As per the latest report from Bar and Bench, the director had filed an interim plea seeking the appointment of a court receiver. Reportedly, through the interim plea, he had sought the appointment of the court receiver on flat no.5/A in Shree Vijaya Bhavan, the shares and rights in the 27 films.
The report further added that the filmmaker contended that Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. and its directors were illegally utilizing 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.
Previously, Sippy had filed the suit in 2023, claiming that after the deaths of his father in December 2007 and his mother, Mohini Sippy, in June 2010, he was entitled to 1/5th share of their estate, along with the legal heirs of his four siblings—three brothers and a married sister.
However, his father made a will and endowed his entire estate to their mother, who obtained letters of administration to administer the estate. Later, she too made a will and bequeathed the property to his deceased brother, Suresh.
Meanwhile, the case is ongoing, and further developments are expected.
When Dharmendra revealed that Amitabh Bachchan got Jai’s role in ‘Sholay’ because of him: ‘Socha chalo bechare ko de do’