On Friday a three-judge bench of the high court in London lifted the reporting restrictions that were sought to be continued by industrialist Gopichand Hinduja. The judgment by Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Warby meant that over two years of legal proceedings related to the dispute in the Hinduja family could be reported by the press. Ironically, it was not just the principle of open justice, but also the well-being of the ailing elder brother, Srichand Hinduja, that drove the courts to remove the restrictions.
The Hindujas
The founder of the Hinduja empire was Parmananda Hinduja (1900-71) who started business when India was still part of the British Raj. The senior Hinduja was based in colonial Bombay and traded with Iran in textiles, dry fruit, tea. His four sons, Srichand, Gopichand, Prakash and Ashok took over after his death in 1971. The group was based in Iran, and following the revolution moved to England in the late 1970s. Over the years Srichand and Gopichand remained in London, Prakash made his home in Geneva and Ashok came to Mumbai.
The Sunday Times Rich List which they topped this year pegs their fortune at £24 billion. Carlton House Terrace, their imposing London residence is where they have hosted the high and the mighty. The annual Diwali party is highly sought after, but they have had their fair share of controversies – from the Bofors scam to the acquisition of British passport controversy. All through they have remained strong and united.
The legal case
The family which once prided itself on its tightly knit structure, now faces the spectacle of English judges agreeing that the oxygen of publicity could offer a protective layer for Srichand Hinduja. Court judgments now made public reveal that the family’s conduct – both, the two daughters of the eldest brother Srichand Hinduja, and the younger brothers led by Gopichand Hinduja – were inimical to the well-being of Srichand. Moreover, the billionaire family appeared incapable of arranging suitable facilities to such an extent that the high court actively considered the option of having Srichand admitted to a public nursing home.
How did the brothers who accentuated their likeness with coordinated sartorial appearance and espoused the principle of “everything belongs to everyone and nothing belongs to anyone” reach this stage?
It all began in 2019 when Srichand Hinduja approached the commercial wing of the high court seeking to revoke the 2014 principle that assets in the name of any single brother belong to all four. The three younger brothers Gopichand, Prakash and Ashok opposed Srichand’s application and contended that his daughters Shanu and Vinoo had prevented them from meeting their elder brother. They also opposed Vinoo’s appointment as her father’s litigation friend saying that she had her own separate financial interest in pursuing these proceedings.
In June 2020, Justice Mrs Falk's ruling affirmed Vinoo as Srichand’s litigation friend, and brought out in the open for the first time the cracks in the Hinduja family. The same month Gopichand Hinduja approached the Court of Protection, a specialist court in England and Wales High Court, which presides over cases involving individuals who do not have the capacity to make decisions. The younger brothers challenged the legitimacy of Srichand’s lasting power of attorney in favour of Shanu and Vinoo, saying that as he suffers from dementia, he was not in a position to take decisions.
Thus, apart from litigations in other parts of the world, in England there were at least two sets of court proceedings. One, relating to the family assets and businesses in the commercial court which started in 2019, and the other in the Court of Protection where judges ensure the protection of the interests of the Protected Person – in this case, Srichand Hinduja.
Srichand’s daughters had maintained that they were being squeezed out of the Hinduja Empire by other family members and hence favoured division. It has now come out that the daughters wrongly used assets belonging to their father to fund their litigation and use it for other purposes.
The family sought reporting restrictions on the Court of Protection proceedings even though the hearings were held in public. This was granted by the Court of Protection. Over 20 hearings took place and it became clear that the sparring parties – Srichand’s daughters Vinoo and Shanu, and Gopichand Hinduja – kept changing their positions with respect to the Reporting Restriction Order driven by their “respective litigation interests”. As proceedings in both the commercial court (dealing with the future of the Hinduja empire) and Court of Protection (testing the validity of Srichand’s power of attorney) continued in parallel, each side tried to use the threat of public reporting in the latter court for its commercial advantage.
Meanwhile, the Official Solicitor, appointed by the court to represent the interest of Srichand Hinduja, took the position that the reporting restriction did not serve him well. “It is argued that it impedes scrutiny in circumstances where that is more likely to protect Srichand Hinduja’s interests than compromise his privacy.”
This was echoed by Jonathan Browning, a Bloomberg journalist, and Brian Farmer, a veteran court reporter, who attended these hearings and made submissions before the Court of Protection seeking removal of reporting restrictions. Browning told the court that the proceedings in the Court of Protection “appear at times to have been used as leverage in the commercial litigation”. The pandemic and other developments led to the reporting restrictions being in place although journalists attending the proceedings and the official solicitor wanted it to be lifted.
It all culminated in two judgments in August 2022 by Justice Hayden of the Court of Protection which laid bare details of the lack of proper care given to Srichand due to the family dispute. He also ordered the lifting of the reporting restriction in the case. “There is a conflict within the family concerning the financing of his care package. Suitable accommodation and appropriate care have not been identified. I do not consider that this would have occurred if these issues had been ventilated in public and reported.” In the same August judgment, it came out that the Hinduja family agreed to “heads of terms” with the intention to end all litigation pertaining to the business empire.
As Gopichand Hinduja appealed Justice Hayden’s August judgment seeking the continuation of the reporting restriction, it took the three-judge bench’s ruling on Friday that brought all these details in the open as it rejected his main grounds of appeal. In a way, the extraordinary depth of the cracks in the family came out with the gory details along with the announcement of a truce.
What next
The “heads of terms” which the Court of Protection was first informed about on June 30, 2022, has led to commercial court hearings and a lengthy trial scheduled in 2023 being vacated. But there are speculations about the possibility of a nasty division in the Hinduja Empire. There is also a possibility of the three brothers buying out the shares of Srichand’s daughters, which too could be a lengthy and acrimonious affair. We get a glimpse of a house still divided by the stance on reporting restrictions taken by both the parties before Justice Hayden.
As mentioned, Gopichand wanted complete reporting restrictions, while Vinoo and Shanu wanted restrictions to be discharged except on matters pertaining to Srichand’s health and not “Property and Affairs issues”. Now that the judgments have been made public both the sides have issued statements that again reveal anything but a united front.
“The Hinduja family matter regarding the health and welfare of SP (Srichand) has already been resolved amicably between all parties and today’s judgment solely concerned whether those matters should remain private,” said a spokesperson for Gopichand Hinduja and his brothers Prakash and Ashok.
A statement from Vinoo and Shanu Hinduja read: “While we are pleased that the dispute surrounding the health and welfare of our father has been resolved, a final settlement with respect to the broader disputes still needs to be reached.”
Observers say it is not entirely impossible that the family reaches some mutual arrangement. Over the last two years since news of the dispute came out, there does not seem to be much effect on the Hinduja empire which is over a century old and is present in 38 countries.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!