Court allows memorial service at Nariman House
Nachman and Freida Holtzberg, grandparents of baby Moshe, will be able to hold a memorial service for their son Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and daughter-in-law Rivka, who were killed during the November 26, 2008, attack at the Nariman House.mumbai Updated: Nov 26, 2010 02:06 IST
Nachman and Freida Holtzberg, grandparents of baby Moshe, will be able to hold a memorial service for their son Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and daughter-in-law Rivka, who were killed during the November 26, 2008, attack at the Nariman House.
Nariman House has become the subject of a property dispute between the Holtzbergs and Rabbi Joseph Kantor, who claims that he was appointed by the New York-based Chabad Lubavitch as the official “responsible for the rebuilding effort in Mumbai”.
Following the plaint filed by Rabbi Kantor, the court receiver had taken over the property earlier this month as per the directions of the city civil and sessions judge SP Deshmukh.
On Thursday, judge Deshmukh allowed the Holtzberg to hold memorial ceremonies for Moshe’s parents on Thursday evening as well as Friday afternoon.
The court has, however, restrained Holtzberg from conducting any other activity in Nariman House. “The ceremonies will have to be performed in the presence of the court receiver,” said Deshmukh, while restricting the number of persons to 50 from the Holtzbergs’ side. Ten persons can attend the ceremonies from Kantor side, the judge said.
Initially, DS Parekh, counsel for Rabbi Kantor, opposed the holding of the memorial ceremonies saying that the Holtzberg were not the owner of the five-storey building and hence cannot have a function there.
Judge Deshmukh said that the court receiver had taken over the property to protect it.
On Thursday, Eliran Russo, the constituted attorney for the Holtzbergs, filed an application in the court saying that Holtzbergs should be made defendants in the suit and not him.
His counsels, Dinesh Gandhi and Amar Mishra, argued that Russo was just a constituted attorney and hence did not have the authority to be defendant in the property dispute suit.