News Item : =========== Wedding bells were in order for Ashok Medhi and Madhuvanti Raje Patwardhan of Sangli, Maharashtra who were married on December 8, 2003 in Swanand Bhuvan Palace in Sangli during a glittering ceremony. Madhuvanti, as many of you may already know, is the sister of Bollywood actress Bhagyashree. This glamorous wedding was followed by a grand reception at Belle Vue Hotel in Gauhati on December 15. Ashok�s wedding was attended by many friends and family from the US . ------ The current raja of sangli vijaysinh patwardhan lives in United states. I dont know wether he is indian or american citizen. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- yuvraj singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > mr.chavan > with all due respect to your views..i think jaipur > is one the leading > examples > of indian royalty in the world... > the problems regarding succession always occured and > will always occur... > but in the light of the great or rather legendary > maharaja Bhawani singh of > jaipur.. > i think we are being unfair if we condemn his > legacy.. > > with due respect > siddhartha singh of kapurthala > > >From: akshay chavan <[email protected]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Kolhapur Succession > >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:51:25 -0800 (PST) > > > > In my previous post on jaipur > >succession i had written about how maharaja of > jaipur > >defied every convention and adopted his grandson. > Well > >he was not alone. > > A new incident has come to light > which I > >was unaware of in 1960's(I was not born then) . > >Maharaja of kolhapur who himself had been adopted > from > >dewas gaddi decided to adopt his grandson from > >shaliniraje. the dewas adoption was itself very > >unpopular. Now there were massive street protests. > >Most marathas favoured the claim of son of princess > >padmaraje kadam bande of torkhed . He had stronger > >claim to the gaddi . But kolhapur raja ignored it > and > >adopted his grandson. Today as a result there is > not > >respect left for house of kolhapur .Most marathas > >including myself have disowned the royal family. > And > >raja has no legitimacy only palaces. > > > >*/Princess padmaraje died in 1999. She was daughter > of > >Chhatrapati rajaram of kolhapur./* > > > > I appears to me jaipur is moving in > same > >direction. I dont think anyone respects jaipur > gaddi > >anymore. Thanks to antics of the maharaja and his > son > >in law. > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster > >http://search.yahoo.com > > > > > >============================== > >Gain access to over two billion names including the > new Immigration > >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click > to learn more. > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Xerox Multifunction devices�that print,copy,scan and > fax. > http://go.msnserver.com/IN/44797.asp Get affordable > printing solutions that > fit your needs . > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the > new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click > to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Mr.Chavan you see a man like Maharaja Bhawani Singh must have taken that decision because of some reason.. one of the Sirmur Maharani's told me that most of the Jaipur's cannot lead the family the way Maharaja Bhawani singh did.. Maybe Diya and Maybe Maharaj's children the princes oj jaipur not equiped to lead.. Afterall the Maharaja's are great visionaries,maybe he see's his grandson as great ruler... maybe..theoratically i agree with you.. regards.. siddhartha singh >From: akshay chavan <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Kolhapur Succession >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:39:53 -0800 (PST) > > > > mr.chavan > > with all due respect to your views..i think jaipur > > is one the leading > > examples > > of indian royalty in the world... > > the problems regarding succession always occured and > > will always occur... > > but in the light of the great or rather legendary > > maharaja Bhawani singh of > > jaipur.. > > i think we are being unfair if we condemn his > > legacy.. > > > > with due respect > > siddhartha singh of kapurthala > > >- >Please don't misunderstand me . Maharaja Bhawani Singh >is a very good and enlightened man. A fine soldier and >a mahavir chakra , he has moved ahead with times. No >one has raised any doubts about the personal >intergrity of the maharaja or his stature but there >are some questions to be answered . > >1) I have no objection to the fact that diya married >within her gotra. I think in this day and age such >things do not matter . I stongly supported her >marriage as i felt this was a progressive view. I also >feel that Diya must be sole heiress to jaipur palaces >and properties. Just because she is a women she cannot >be deprived of the wealth. As per modern law she can >get the money. > But what i cannot digest is what was the need for >Maharaja Bhawani singh to adopt his grandson against >the rajput law? After him , his brother or nephew are >the heirs to the title of the maharaja . The grandson >may inherit the palaces but he cannot claim the title. > >2)Even if the argument that adoption took place >because Diya wanted to strengthen her claim to jaipur >properties in dispute is accepted , what is most >absurd is granting the title of "maharaj" to his son >in law. > This is just so ridiculous . This title is used >only by maharaja's younger sons . A maharaja has no >power to grant this title. This has simply no >justification. >Mr Bhawani singh just wants to give some status to his >son in law. > >In the end what matters is what people think. After >all it is upon them to "make or break " a maharaja. > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam >http://mail.yahoo.com > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > _________________________________________________________________ Take a loan. Win great prizes! Handsome prizes to be won! Take a loan & win TV, Fridge & many more prizes ! http://go.msnserver.com/IN/44044.asp

> mr.chavan > with all due respect to your views..i think jaipur > is one the leading > examples > of indian royalty in the world... > the problems regarding succession always occured and > will always occur... > but in the light of the great or rather legendary > maharaja Bhawani singh of > jaipur.. > i think we are being unfair if we condemn his > legacy.. > > with due respect > siddhartha singh of kapurthala - Please don't misunderstand me . Maharaja Bhawani Singh is a very good and enlightened man. A fine soldier and a mahavir chakra , he has moved ahead with times. No one has raised any doubts about the personal intergrity of the maharaja or his stature but there are some questions to be answered . 1) I have no objection to the fact that diya married within her gotra. I think in this day and age such things do not matter . I stongly supported her marriage as i felt this was a progressive view. I also feel that Diya must be sole heiress to jaipur palaces and properties. Just because she is a women she cannot be deprived of the wealth. As per modern law she can get the money. But what i cannot digest is what was the need for Maharaja Bhawani singh to adopt his grandson against the rajput law? After him , his brother or nephew are the heirs to the title of the maharaja . The grandson may inherit the palaces but he cannot claim the title. 2)Even if the argument that adoption took place because Diya wanted to strengthen her claim to jaipur properties in dispute is accepted , what is most absurd is granting the title of "maharaj" to his son in law. This is just so ridiculous . This title is used only by maharaja's younger sons . A maharaja has no power to grant this title. This has simply no justification. Mr Bhawani singh just wants to give some status to his son in law. In the end what matters is what people think. After all it is upon them to "make or break " a maharaja. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com

mr.chavan with all due respect to your views..i think jaipur is one the leading examples of indian royalty in the world... the problems regarding succession always occured and will always occur... but in the light of the great or rather legendary maharaja Bhawani singh of jaipur.. i think we are being unfair if we condemn his legacy.. with due respect siddhartha singh of kapurthala >From: akshay chavan <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Kolhapur Succession >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:51:25 -0800 (PST) > > In my previous post on jaipur >succession i had written about how maharaja of jaipur >defied every convention and adopted his grandson. Well >he was not alone. > A new incident has come to light which I >was unaware of in 1960's(I was not born then) . >Maharaja of kolhapur who himself had been adopted from >dewas gaddi decided to adopt his grandson from >shaliniraje. the dewas adoption was itself very >unpopular. Now there were massive street protests. >Most marathas favoured the claim of son of princess >padmaraje kadam bande of torkhed . He had stronger >claim to the gaddi . But kolhapur raja ignored it and >adopted his grandson. Today as a result there is not >respect left for house of kolhapur .Most marathas >including myself have disowned the royal family. And >raja has no legitimacy only palaces. > >*/Princess padmaraje died in 1999. She was daughter of >Chhatrapati rajaram of kolhapur./* > > I appears to me jaipur is moving in same >direction. I dont think anyone respects jaipur gaddi >anymore. Thanks to antics of the maharaja and his son >in law. > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster >http://search.yahoo.com > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > _________________________________________________________________ Xerox Multifunction devices that print,copy,scan and fax. http://go.msnserver.com/IN/44797.asp Get affordable printing solutions that fit your needs .

well Mr.Grewal it's quite unfortunate that mostly all the leading royal families are fighting court cases..either with each other or with the respective governments... it's sad that once such big rajas and maharajas are now fighting for their survival... shame on this country.. >From: "govind grewal" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Battle Royale: Gaekwads4 >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:41:12 +0000 > > > >Im unware of the problem the Baroda family is facing it is sad that a great >family should fight amongst them selves > >_________________________________________________________________ >Easiest Money Transfer to India. Send Money To 6000 Indian Towns. >http://go.msnserver.com/IN/42198.asp Easiest Way To Send Money Home! > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > _________________________________________________________________ Contact brides & grooms FREE! http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmltag Only on www.shaadi.com. Register now!

At 10:51  11/03/04 -0800, you wrote: >                  In my previous post on jaipur >succession i had written about how maharaja of jaipur >defied every convention and adopted his grandson. Well >he was not alone. >              A new incident has come to light which I >was unaware of in 1960's(I was not born then) . >Maharaja of kolhapur who himself had been adopted from >dewas gaddi decided to adopt his grandson from >shaliniraje. the dewas adoption was itself very >unpopular. Now there were massive street protests. >Most marathas favoured the claim of son of princess >padmaraje kadam bande of torkhed . He had stronger >claim to the gaddi . But kolhapur raja ignored it and >adopted his grandson. Today as a result there is not >respect left for house of kolhapur .Most marathas >including myself have disowned the royal family. And >raja has no legitimacy only palaces. > >*/Princess padmaraje died in 1999. She was daughter of >Chhatrapati rajaram of kolhapur./* > >            I appears to me jaipur is moving in same >direction. I dont think anyone respects jaipur gaddi >anymore. Thanks to antics of the maharaja and his son >in law. > While I was aware of the change of succession, I didn't know that it was so disliked. Can you tell us why the son of Padmaraje was favoured over the Dewas heir? As for Jaipur, I shudder when I think of what may happen when the Maharaja is succeeded by his underage grandson. His daughter will be de facto ruler for sure. Cheers, Henry

In my previous post on jaipur succession i had written about how maharaja of jaipur defied every convention and adopted his grandson. Well he was not alone. A new incident has come to light which I was unaware of in 1960's(I was not born then) . Maharaja of kolhapur who himself had been adopted from dewas gaddi decided to adopt his grandson from shaliniraje. the dewas adoption was itself very unpopular. Now there were massive street protests. Most marathas favoured the claim of son of princess padmaraje kadam bande of torkhed . He had stronger claim to the gaddi . But kolhapur raja ignored it and adopted his grandson. Today as a result there is not respect left for house of kolhapur .Most marathas including myself have disowned the royal family. And raja has no legitimacy only palaces. */Princess padmaraje died in 1999. She was daughter of Chhatrapati rajaram of kolhapur./* I appears to me jaipur is moving in same direction. I dont think anyone respects jaipur gaddi anymore. Thanks to antics of the maharaja and his son in law. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

Im unware of the problem the Baroda family is facing it is sad that a great family should fight amongst them selves _________________________________________________________________ Easiest Money Transfer to India. Send Money To 6000 Indian Towns. http://go.msnserver.com/IN/42198.asp Easiest Way To Send Money Home!

Im unaware of the problem that the baroda royal family is facing ..... it's sad that a geat hope should fight amongst themselves govind grewal of bharatpur _________________________________________________________________ Take a loan. Win great prizes! Handsome prizes to be won! Take a loan & win TV, Fridge & many more prizes ! http://go.msnserver.com/IN/44044.asp

At 10:22  09/03/04 -0800, you wrote: > >--- yuvraj singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> this is really sad news that a man like sangramsinh >> ji is getting charged >> for >> such things... >> sad.. >> > >               I wonder why  should anyone feel bad >for sangram sinh . On the contrary I am very happy >that sangramsinh is finally paying for his crimes. Of >all I have seen read and heard , if there is a single >villan in this entire drama , it is him. His naked >lust for money has forced him to turned against his >own family. >     On the internet , there is a court case of >gujarat high court. It took some time for me to >understand it . But now i realise what kind of >criminal that man is. >      He managed the gaekwad companies on behalf of >the family. When his own brother was dying of cancer , >the entire family was in bombay. At this time >sangramsinh fradulnetly issued fake shares in his name >and took control of all the companies. He even >persecuted his own 90 year old mother and called her a >criminal. >    However, what is called as poetic justic, today >all his companies are bankrupt . So now he has turned >his attention to other properties. I think Mrinalini >devi is totally innocent and has been made a >scapegoat. Also I feel that ranjitsinh and his wife >are really nice people. >    What I feel really sad is that the name of house >of gaekwad has been dragged through mud due to this >dispecable man. > If he gets his hands on any money or property he will lose it soon enough and there will be nothing for his heirs. This whole scenario is similair to what happened in Udaipur. He too wanted his share of the inheritance because he had grand plans for Udaipur anf he was concerned that the Maharana was giving away too much. He also failed in his business ventures, so one shudders to think where Udaipur would be today if he became the Maharana. The Royal Family was also divided with some supporting him and some against him. Cheers, Henry

At 08:13  26/02/04 -0800, you wrote: > I read a few books at the asiatic library in bombay . >Here you find old and rare books. The books I read are >old and out of print. I am giving my review > >1)Bhonsle of nagpur and east india company-- >  This gives the detailed history of the biggest >princely state in india till 1857. I am amazed how >little we know of this kingdom of 70,000 sq miles, >almost as large as hyderabad. Details of various >rulers and their campaings is given . But the best >part is that every aspect such as economy, town >planning , commerce trade, land revenue every detail >is covered in this book . Had this state survived it >would have easily dwarfed hyderabad. sadly this el >dorado was lost in 1857. On scale of 10 , give this >book 8. > >2)Sayajirao of baroda- by fatehsinghrao gaekwad. >I expected this book to be biased as it was written by >his great grandson but it is not so. Mr Geakwad has >been very neutral . This book covered sayaji's pubilc >life from childhood till his death . His personal life >is just peppered in. He was am extraordinary man who >did good thing for his people . How he accomplished >this in face of strong opposition from british is crux >of the book. >         What is amazing is the this book tears to >shreds the claim that princes were stooges of the >british. This great ruler almost came on verge of >being desposed by the british for "Sedition" . His >personal life was very tragic . All his sons died very >young and despite his efforts turned out to be >wastrels . His daughter too was widowed at young age >of 30 . His first wife died young . >     On the whole an excellent book and must read for >all . I wish his personal life could have been in a >little more detail. I give this 9 out of 10. > > >:more reviews later I have just received "Maharani: The Story of an Indian Princess" by Brinda, Maharani of Kapurthala as told to Elaine Williams, published 1954. Overall it is disappointing, as this is one lady who loved herself and supposedly everyone loved her. She doesn't mind dropping names of famous people that she met and mentioning how she would have loved to modernise Kapurthala and to have helped the needy, but in reality all she seemed to have done is travel about Europe without achieving anything. Score is 4 out of 10, and thats only because there's a couple of worthwhile photos. Cheers, Henry

--- yuvraj singh <[email protected]> wrote: > this is really sad news that a man like sangramsinh > ji is getting charged > for > such things... > sad.. > I wonder why should anyone feel bad for sangram sinh . On the contrary I am very happy that sangramsinh is finally paying for his crimes. Of all I have seen read and heard , if there is a single villan in this entire drama , it is him. His naked lust for money has forced him to turned against his own family. On the internet , there is a court case of gujarat high court. It took some time for me to understand it . But now i realise what kind of criminal that man is. He managed the gaekwad companies on behalf of the family. When his own brother was dying of cancer , the entire family was in bombay. At this time sangramsinh fradulnetly issued fake shares in his name and took control of all the companies. He even persecuted his own 90 year old mother and called her a criminal. However, what is called as poetic justic, today all his companies are bankrupt . So now he has turned his attention to other properties. I think Mrinalini devi is totally innocent and has been made a scapegoat. Also I feel that ranjitsinh and his wife are really nice people. What I feel really sad is that the name of house of gaekwad has been dragged through mud due to this dispecable man. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

this is really sad news that a man like sangramsinh ji is getting charged for such things... sad.. >From: akshay chavan <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Battle Royale: Gaekwads4 >Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 07:24:59 -0800 (PST) > >Double blow for Sangramsinh Gaekwad >------------------------------------------------------- > >Vadodara, November 21: A CITY court on Friday rejected >a contempt application filed nine years ago against >Vadodara royal family in connection with the alleged >sale of a gold canon. The petition, in which Maharani >Shantadevi Gaekwad was the original defendant, was >filed in 1994. > >In the petition, Sangramsinh Gaekwad, Shantadevi’s >youngest son, had alleged that the defendant had >committed willful and gross contempt of the court by >clandestinely disposing off the gun in violation of a >status quo order on any sale of the royal properties. >The status quo on royal properties was passed in >August 1992 by a senior division civil judge on a >partition suit filed by Sangramsinh in November 1991. >Sangramsinh had alleged that the golden canon was sold >in the pendency of the stay, causing contempt of >court. > >According to the application, sale of the guns (all >gold) worth Rs 4.5 crore, was carried out sometime >between 1992 and 1993, during which the stay was in >force. > >After the death of Maharani Shantadevi in 2002, her >daughter Mrunalinidevi Puar and eldest son Ranjitsinh >Gaekwad were added to the petition as defendants. Both >in their replies denied that the canon had been sold >in breach of the stay order. > >However, the defendants denied the existence of any >such gun. The contention was that at the time of the >status quo order and much before the filing of >contempt suit, the golden gun had already been sold. >In its order Judge N G Parmar has observed that there >was no evidence of sale and the plaintiff has neither >produced any document, nor produced any affidavit of >the jeweller to whom the said gun might have been >sold. > >Speaking about the order, counsel for the Vadodara >royal family, Manish Mathur, said that it was one more >proof of ill intentions of the opponent. Counsel of >Sangramsinh, advocate Kailash Jethmalani, contended >that as original defendant Rajmata Shantadevi was >dead, the petition had already become technically >infructious. > >‘‘Its not going to affect other pending cases in the >royal dispute,’’ said Jethmalani. >Accused of embezzling Rs 2.44 crore in PF money >SURAT: CITY police on Friday registered a cheating >case against the chairman of the defunct Baroda Rayon >Corporation (BRC), Sangramsingh Pratapsingh Gaekwad >for the embezzlement of Provident Fund money worth Rs >2.44 crore payable to the employees during 2000-02. >The hier to the princely Gaekwad dynasty, Sangramsingh >Gaekwad, a resident of Mumbai and manager of the BRC, >Bhupendra Manilal Desai have been charged under >section 420, 405, 406 and 409 of the IPC. > >A complaint regarding this was lodged with the Udhana >police by an officer working with the Central >Provident Fund (CPF), Sunil Parsheshwar Pannicker. >According to police, Gaekwad has embezzled PF money of >the employees who were relieved after the closure of >the company two years ago. > >The employees’ union of the BRC had launched >agitational programmes against the company management >for the payment of the outstanding money. >In his complaint, Pannicker has stated that Gaekwad >and his former manager, Bhupendra Desai had not >deposited the Provident Fund money with the CPF for >the year 2000-02. Despite several notices given by the >CPF, the company management did not gave any >favourable reply. However, acting on a State >Government order the CPF lodged a complaint. >Police Inspector A M Rathod said, ‘‘The BRC was closed >two years ago and hundreds of its employees were >rendered jobless. Since then the employees have been >demanding payment of the outstanding PF money. The >employees were not given their Provident Fund money >because the company owners had not deposited the amout >in the accounts of their employees with the PF >office.’’He said, ‘‘We have registered a complaint >against the company owner, Sangramsingh Gaekwad and >his manager, Bhupendra Desai. We will investigate the >entire case and then take appropriate decision > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster >http://search.yahoo.com > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > _________________________________________________________________ Post Classifieds on MSN classifieds. http://go.msnserver.com/IN/44045.asp Buy and Sell on MSN Classifieds.

Double blow for Sangramsinh Gaekwad ------------------------------------------------------- Vadodara, November 21: A CITY court on Friday rejected a contempt application filed nine years ago against Vadodara royal family in connection with the alleged sale of a gold canon. The petition, in which Maharani Shantadevi Gaekwad was the original defendant, was filed in 1994. In the petition, Sangramsinh Gaekwad, Shantadevi�s youngest son, had alleged that the defendant had committed willful and gross contempt of the court by clandestinely disposing off the gun in violation of a status quo order on any sale of the royal properties. The status quo on royal properties was passed in August 1992 by a senior division civil judge on a partition suit filed by Sangramsinh in November 1991. Sangramsinh had alleged that the golden canon was sold in the pendency of the stay, causing contempt of court. According to the application, sale of the guns (all gold) worth Rs 4.5 crore, was carried out sometime between 1992 and 1993, during which the stay was in force. After the death of Maharani Shantadevi in 2002, her daughter Mrunalinidevi Puar and eldest son Ranjitsinh Gaekwad were added to the petition as defendants. Both in their replies denied that the canon had been sold in breach of the stay order. However, the defendants denied the existence of any such gun. The contention was that at the time of the status quo order and much before the filing of contempt suit, the golden gun had already been sold. In its order Judge N G Parmar has observed that there was no evidence of sale and the plaintiff has neither produced any document, nor produced any affidavit of the jeweller to whom the said gun might have been sold. Speaking about the order, counsel for the Vadodara royal family, Manish Mathur, said that it was one more proof of ill intentions of the opponent. Counsel of Sangramsinh, advocate Kailash Jethmalani, contended that as original defendant Rajmata Shantadevi was dead, the petition had already become technically infructious. ��Its not going to affect other pending cases in the royal dispute,�� said Jethmalani. Accused of embezzling Rs 2.44 crore in PF money SURAT: CITY police on Friday registered a cheating case against the chairman of the defunct Baroda Rayon Corporation (BRC), Sangramsingh Pratapsingh Gaekwad for the embezzlement of Provident Fund money worth Rs 2.44 crore payable to the employees during 2000-02. The hier to the princely Gaekwad dynasty, Sangramsingh Gaekwad, a resident of Mumbai and manager of the BRC, Bhupendra Manilal Desai have been charged under section 420, 405, 406 and 409 of the IPC. A complaint regarding this was lodged with the Udhana police by an officer working with the Central Provident Fund (CPF), Sunil Parsheshwar Pannicker. According to police, Gaekwad has embezzled PF money of the employees who were relieved after the closure of the company two years ago. The employees� union of the BRC had launched agitational programmes against the company management for the payment of the outstanding money. In his complaint, Pannicker has stated that Gaekwad and his former manager, Bhupendra Desai had not deposited the Provident Fund money with the CPF for the year 2000-02. Despite several notices given by the CPF, the company management did not gave any favourable reply. However, acting on a State Government order the CPF lodged a complaint. Police Inspector A M Rathod said, ��The BRC was closed two years ago and hundreds of its employees were rendered jobless. Since then the employees have been demanding payment of the outstanding PF money. The employees were not given their Provident Fund money because the company owners had not deposited the amout in the accounts of their employees with the PF office.��He said, ��We have registered a complaint against the company owner, Sangramsingh Gaekwad and his manager, Bhupendra Desai. We will investigate the entire case and then take appropriate decision __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

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 d�cor 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 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

Court voids Rajmata will, orders stay on property -------------------------------------------------VADODARA: The battle royale for property in the Gaekwad family, the former rulers of Vadodara, took yet another interesting turn on Saturday with the civil judge P R Makwana nullifying Rajmata Shantadevi Gaekwad�s will. The court ordered a stay on all immovable and movable properties of the royal family.Public prosecutor Avdooth Sumant filed an application before the court seeking a stay on the order for a couple of days, but it was quashed.The court said that the will is fabricated and appointed court commissioners in advocate Srikrishna Acharya and senior clerk Chandrakant Kahrwa to take �panchnama� of all the immovable property of the royal family and asked them to submit a report. Shantadevi�s youngest son, Sangramsinh Gaekwad had alleged in July that the will and the two codicils were fabricated documents. He has even alleged that his mother�s signatures have been forged as none of the three documents have the same signature.The family of the former rulers has been divided ever since Sangramsinh filed in the High Court in 1991 questioning Shantadevi�s right to draw up a will. On one side is the eldest daughter Mrunalini Devi Puar and Ranjitsinh and on the other there is Sangramsinh.Sangramsinh had argued in 1991 that they are not governed by the Hindu Succession Act and that their family custom did not allow the women to inherit property.Shantadevi died on May 22 last year and the royal family allegedly fabricated the will to siphon off the property, said advocate of Sangramsinh Gaekwad, Kailash Jethmalani. Puwar also sought a probate on the will.However, Puar has failed to produce the original copy of the will before the court even after a year. Sangramsinh has filed an objection into Puar�s probate as well. In an application on June 26, the court had granted adinterim orders directing Ranjitsinh Gaekwad, his sister and chancellor of M S University Mrunalinidevi Puar and his son Samarjitsinh Gaekwad to maintain a status quo on all properties of the royal family till July 9.The court has ordered the stay on the Laxmivilas palace, the 707 acres surrounding the palace, the field next to the Polo Ground, the land in front of technology faculty, 5,000 square metres of land on Juhu Tara road in Mumbai, the property on race course road, Shikari Chowki at Timbi, Dabka outhouse, agricultural land near Makarpura, the bungalow at Ajwa, the land near Jambhua, among others. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

A �betrayed� scion, a �manipulating� maharani and tonnes of wealth. Milind Ghatwai reports on the latest in the battle of the Gaekwads ___________________________________________________ Something is more than amiss behind the imposing, elaborately-carved gates of the Laxmi Vilas Palace. The 186-room palace, the seat of the erstwhile Baroda State in Gujarat and its surrounding 707 acres of land bang in Vadodara�s heart, has been involved in a bitter property dispute, pending in the Gujarat High Court since 1991. Now, the acrimony between Sangramsinh, the youngest brother of Fatehsinhrao Gaekwad, Vadodara�s last ruler and his six other siblings looks set to scale another peak. Kailash Jethmalani, Sangramsinh�s advocate, claims the clan�s Meherangadh Palace, a two-storey structure on Mumbai�s Juhu Tara Road, has recently been partly demolished. This, Jethmalani says, is in contempt of the Gujarat HC�s ruling that has ordered a status quo on all landed holdings. The dispute, of course, is not just over the Gaekwads� property, which, by itself, is an embarrassment of riches. The value of the land around the Laxmi Vilas palace is estimated at around Rs 2,000 crore. There�s more. Like paintings from the Renaissance period, antiques, bronze sculptures, ivory carvings, more than 165 kg of gold and over 37,000 kg of silver! And the icing on the cake? Diamonds such as the 125 carat Star of the South, The Akbar Shah and Empress Eugenie. The total worth of just the heirlooms, including tiaras and crowns, is pegged at Rs 517 crore, and we haven�t even started talking of the family�s other possessions including property and vintage cars (the diamonds have not been evaluated recently. Sangramsinh�s petition names only those properties and jewellery that were listed in the family�s tax returns). The protagonist here is Sangramsinh, the bearded 60-year-old scion, who runs the troubled Surat-based Baroda Rayon Corporation, and who left the palace well over two decades ago. The first legal case was filed by Sangramsinh two years after the death of Fatehsinh. The scion, the only one among the siblings to be born at the palace, wants no less than half the share. But the family has disowned him and made it sufficiently clear that they have nothing to do with Sangramsinh, who stays in a 3,000-sq-feet flat on Mumbai�s Bhulabhai Road with his wife Asharaje of Nepal. The man who started it all blames his elder sister Mrunalinidevi Puar, who was married to the Maharaja of Dhar in 1950 but returned to the palace within a month of the marriage. The fight, a relative of Sangramsinh maintains, was never against his mother Shantadevi, who died last year, but who was dragged to the court in 1991 because the properties were in her name. Finally, when her will became public, Sangramsinh found his name missing from the list of beneficiaries. Sangramsinh�s suit terms the will as fabricated and questions Shantadevi�s right to draw up a will, contending that royals are not governed by the Hindu Succession Act, and family customs since the 17th century don�t allow women to inherit property. �Though he is a scion, he does not own a single inch of land,� maintains Jethmalani. According to Sangramsinh�s petition, on her return from Dhar, Mrunalinidevi was appointed on the board of several of the Gaekwad-run trusts. Later, �as a mark of respect�, she was also made the director of the Gaekwad-run Alaukik Trading and Investment Corporation. Mrunalinidevi is accused of taking over the directorship in spite of her not possessing any shares, and of manipulating the shareholding pattern. Sangramsinh also accuses Mrunalinidevi as being the cause of many other ills, one among them being her wangling of the chancellorship of the MS University, a premier seat of learning in Gujarat. Along with Mrunalinidevi who has stayed in the palace ever since her failed marriage, the other occupants include Ranjitsinh, the present maharaja, his wife, and their son and daughter-in-law. Relations between Sangramsinh and his siblings are so strained that his request to hold his daughter�s marriage at the palace�she finally married Jyotiraditya Scindia in Delhi�was disallowed. While the scion claims that he was not even allowed entry into the palace on the occasion of his mother�s death, brother Ranjitsinh, a former Congress MP, says, �In fact, he refused to be one of the pall bearers and did not even stay in Baroda.� �And what is this about Sangramsinh declining the chancellorship of the MS University in my favour?� asks Ranjitsinh. �Nobody told me this before, I am hearing this for the first time,� says Ranjitsinh, dismissing the allegations. States Sangramsinh�s petition: �Mrs Puar has crossed all levels of humanity. She never allowed mother Shantadevi to meet Sangramsinh. On several occasions before variousforums, talks of settlement were initiated, but Mrs Puar always succeeded in seeing that no meeting took place.� Among the other accusations levelled by Sangramsinh, one talks about the family in residence melting a gold cannon despite a court stay, in response to the partition suit. �Maybe, we did but what proof does he have?� asks Ranjitsinh. While those close to Sangramsinh say he was in favour of a compromise from day one, the other side says he should withdraw the court cases first for the talks to even begin. Says Asharaje about the family�s indifference towards her husband, �Naturally, he misses his days in the palace. They made our lives miserable.� It looks fairly obvious that this, barring an unlikely compromise, is set to become a long drawn out dispute. One that will sully not only the reputations of the people involved, but also ruin the egalitarian atmosphere of the Laxmi Vilas palace, whose erstwhile occupants built a studio specially for classical painter Raja Ravi Varma. Blue-Blood Feuds GWALIOR: The Rajmata of Gwalior and senior BJP leader Vijayraje Scindia had, in her will, deprived her only son, late Madhavrao Scindia, of a share in her property. She handed over most of it to a trust with one-fifth going to public charity. Vijayaraje, who died on January 25, 2001, had fallen out with Madhavrao during the Emergency in 1977 when he joined the Congress. In her will, she also deprived him of the right to perform her last rites. JAIPUR: The flamboyant Bhawani ��Bubbles�� Singh, Maharaja of Jaipur, sparked a bitter feud over who should control his family�s � 400 million assets by naming his five-year-old grandson as his heir. Bhawani Singh, 71, adopted his daughter�s son Padmanabh, and named him as his heir last year. His brothers took the matter to court saying Bhawani had broken an ancient Rajput tradition by failing to name an heir from the male line. HYDERABAD: A seven-year-long dispute brewed over the sharing of proceeds from the sale of the famed jewellery collection of the former nizam. The Indian Government had acquired the 173-piece collection for Rs 2.18 billion and handed over the money to the Nizam�s Jewellery Trust (NJT) in 1995. As grandson of the seventh nizam, Mukarram Jah was entitled to the lion�s share. The dispute arose over the sharing of about Rs 600 million among approximately 2,000 beneficiaries. Last year, Jah�s lawyers reached a separate understanding with the litigants __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

At 12:28 AM 28/02/04 -0800, you wrote: >This Article is quiet chilling. >_______________________________________________________ > >Aaj Ka Minister: Goonda King Of Kunda  >History-sheeter Raghuraj Pratap Singh, a minister >under Kalyan, runs his own fiefdom >_______________________________________________________ > What does Goonda imply? Is it some sort of pun on Gond? Just curious. This article seems to be from 1997/8, what is the situation now? The last I heard I think he was being held in jail on some/all of the charges. > > >HE is the archetypal Chhote Thakur, straight out of a >Mumbaiya Hindi potboiler. He holds court in his >courtyard and delivers instant justice—slaps  >jurmaana (fine) on 'erring subjects' or orders a >'sound' thrashing. His subjects, poor men, women and >children, touch his feet with their foreheads, >pleading for mercy. Outside his fortressed Bainti >Estate, people queue up every morning to offer >salutations, their bodies bent at 90 degrees, hands >raised in a namaste above their heads. > >The 'raja' in question is Kunwar Raghuraj Pratap Singh >alias Raghubir Singh alias Toofan Singh alias Raja >Bhaiya. He also happens to be the minister of >programme implementation in Kalyan Singh's >criminal-studded jumbo Cabinet. Add to this the fact >that he is the most dreaded name in Pratapgarh and >Allahabad districts. With 25 cases against him, >ranging from cheating to murder, the honourable mantri >is a prime example of criminals making it good in >politics. > He is well connected too, related by marriage to Barwani, Pratapgarh in Rajastha, Kalakankar and Tehri-Garhwal if my sources are correct. I wonder what his relatives think? IIRC Another member of the Royalty, (a son of the Raja of Satara) also had a brush with the law over some serious charges, but I haven't heard anything more recently. Cheers, Henry

At 08:13  26/02/04 -0800, you wrote: > I read a few books at the asiatic library in bombay . >Here you find old and rare books. The books I read are >old and out of print. I am giving my review > >1)Bhonsle of nagpur and east india company-- >  This gives the detailed history of the biggest >princely state in india till 1857. I am amazed how >little we know of this kingdom of 70,000 sq miles, >almost as large as hyderabad. Details of various >rulers and their campaings is given . But the best >part is that every aspect such as economy, town >planning , commerce trade, land revenue every detail >is covered in this book . Had this state survived it >would have easily dwarfed hyderabad. sadly this el >dorado was lost in 1857. On scale of 10 , give this >book 8. > >2)Sayajirao of baroda- by fatehsinghrao gaekwad. >I expected this book to be biased as it was written by >his great grandson but it is not so. Mr Geakwad has >been very neutral . This book covered sayaji's pubilc >life from childhood till his death . His personal life >is just peppered in. He was am extraordinary man who >did good thing for his people . How he accomplished >this in face of strong opposition from british is crux >of the book. >         What is amazing is the this book tears to >shreds the claim that princes were stooges of the >british. This great ruler almost came on verge of >being desposed by the british for "Sedition" . His >personal life was very tragic . All his sons died very >young and despite his efforts turned out to be >wastrels . His daughter too was widowed at young age >of 30 . His first wife died young . >     On the whole an excellent book and must read for >all . I wish his personal life could have been in a >little more detail. I give this 9 out of 10. > > >:more reviews later > Dear Akshay, Thank you for your reviews. I look forward to more in due course. Please also review Hansdev Patels, "Royal Families and Palaces of Gujarat", it sounds quite interesting as well. Cheers, Henry