Disposed

Mr. Samraat Kanwal Malhotra v. Sushila B. Saklani Alias Rana and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2012NMA/278/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of an appeal challenging an order requiring the appellant (a legatee) to pay court fee stamps from assets of a deceased. The court directed payment of Rs.75,000 for one petition and allowed the petitioner in the second petition to apply for exemption from a second stamp payment, deferring the issue.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to pay Rs.75,000 court fee; respondents allowed move to seek exemption from second set from Testamentary Judge. Direction to hear petitions together retained.

Mr. Samraat Kanwal Malhotra Vs Sushila B. Saklani Alias… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

NMA.278.2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL (ST). NO.49 OF 2012 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.133 OF 2010 IN PETITION (ST).NO.829 OF 2010

Samraat K. Malhotra

Appellant

versus

Sushgila B. Saklani Rana and others Respondents

¶9

Mr.Mahesh Patil i/by Sanjay Associates for appellant.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND RANJIT MORE, J.

¶11

DATE : February 27, 2012

¶12

PC :

¶13

The appellant Samraat K. Malhotra, one of the Legatees under the will executed by deceased Commander Mr.M.Kanwal Mangal Sain Malhotra (Retired) has filed this appeal for challenging the order dated January 18, 2011 of the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No.1333 of 2010 in Testamentary Petition (L) No.829 of 2010.

1 of 5

NMA.278.2012

By the impugned order dated January 18, 2011, as corrected vide order dated March 29, 2011, the learned Single Judge has directed that the Court Fee Stamp of Rs.75,000/- for Testamentary Petition No.275 of 2003 filed by executors as well as another Court Fee Stamp of Rs.75,000/- for Testamentary Petition (L) No.829 of 2010 (aggregating to Rs.1.50 lakhs) be paid out of deposit of Rs. 20,10,670/- of the decesed in M/s.Raymond Limited, which is respondent no.2 in the appeal and respondent no.1 in Notice of Motion No.133 of 2010.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly raised two contentions in this appeal viz. :

¶19

(i) the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed payment of two sets of court fee stamps in respect of two probate petitions for probate of one and the same will;

¶20

(ii) in any case, the investment of the deceased in M/s.Raymond Limited ought not to be disturbed for payment of court fee stamps for either of the probate petitions. Learned counsel further stated that the appellant is ready and willing to pay court fee stamp of Rs.75,000/- for Testamentary Petition No.272 of 2003 filed by the Executors.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case it appears to us that interests of justice

2 of 5

NMA.278.2012

would be served if the appeal is disposed of in terms of following order :-

¶26

A) The appellant shall pay court fee stamp of Rs.75,000/(Rs.Seventy five thousand only) on Testamentary Petition No.272 of 2003 as per the statement already recorded hereinabove. This shall be done within two weeks from today;

¶27

B) After payment of the court fee stamp as above, it will be open to the petitioner in Testamentary Petition (L) No.829 of 2010 i.e. Ms.Sushila B. Saklani @ Rana to move the learned Testamentary Judge with a prayer not to require her to pay another set of court fee stamp on Testamentary Petition (L) No.829 of 2010, on all available grounds including the contention that only one set of court fee stamp is required to be paid for probate of one and the same will and any other ground available, if any, to a lady litigant about exemption from payment of court fee stamp;

¶28

C) If claim for such an exemption is upheld, obviously there will be no reduction in the assets of the estate of deceased in respect of investment of the deceased in M/s.Raymond Limited and appellant's grievance will not survive at all;

¶29

D) If claim for exemption is not upheld, it will be open to the learned Testamentary Judge to act upon the order dated January 18, 2011 in Notice of Motion No.1333 of 2010;

¶30

¶31

NMA.278.2012

¶32

E) The direction of learned Testamentary Judge that both the Probate Petitions shall be heard together is not disturbed.

¶33

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of in terms of above directions.

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

M.S.Thatte

4 of 5

NMA.278.2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶41

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.278 OF 2012 IN APPEAL (ST). NO.49 OF 2012 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.133 OF 2010 IN PETITION (ST).NO.829 OF 2010

¶42

Samraat K. Malhotra versus Sushgila B. Saklani Rana and others

¶43

Appellant

¶44

Respondents

¶45

Mr.Mahesh Patil i/by Sanjay Associates for appellant.

¶46

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND RANJIT MORE, J.

¶47

DATE : February 27, 2012

¶48

PC :

¶49

Heard learned advocate for the appellant. For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion, delay of 269 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶51

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶52

5 of 5

Mr. Samraat Kanwal Malhotra v. Sushila B. Saklani Alias Rana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Samraat Kanwal Malhotra v. Sushila B. Saklani Alias Rana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Bhikaji Jagannath Wagdhare Vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and 7 Ors.

Meera W/O Sadanand Kamat Vs the State of Maharashtra and 16

Mohammed Iliyas Mangroo Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Samraat Kanwal Malhotra Vs Sushila B. Saklani Alias Rana and Anr.

Subramani Gopalakrishnan Vs Securities Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Talluri Srinivas Vs Securities Exchange Board of India and Anr.