Disposed

Manoj Navinchandra Shah v. Usha B. Shah and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2015NMT/14/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a testamentary suit, the High Court appointed the Court Receiver as administrator of the deceased's estate, including a Mumbai flat. The court empowered the administrator to lease the property to generate income for the estate and reimbursed the applicant for initial advances.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Court Receiver as administrator; order to invite bids for leasing the flat; permission to reimburse applicant for advances.

Manoj Navinchandra Shah Vs Usha B. Shah and Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

920-NMS14-15.DOC

¶2

Agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 14 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 78 OF 2009 IN

¶6

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 551 OF 2009

¶7

Usha B. Shah...Applicant
In the matter between
Manoj Navinchandra Shah…Plaintiff
Versus
Usha B. Shah & Anr.…Defendants

¶8

Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, i/b Vigil Juris, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Arvind Rathod, i/b M/s. Arvind Rathod & Co., for the
Defendant No. 2.

¶9

Ms. Shilpa Kapil, for Defendant No. 1 / Applicant.

¶10

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 17th February 2015

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.The application is by the 1st Defendant, the sister of the
deceased. The 1st Defendant contests this probate petition.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

920-NMS14-15.DOC

¶15

2.In this Notice of Motion, the 1st Defendant seeks
appointment of an Administrator of the estate of the deceased, i.e.,
the residential Flat No. 21, “Rajhans” Building, 88, “G” Road,
Marine Drive, Mumbai 400 021. She also seeks that the
Administrator appointed be directed to invite bids and to give out
the flat on leave and license basis, so that it generates some income
for the benefit of the estate.

¶16

3.The 2nd Defendant supports the 1st Defendant to the extent
that the flat be given out on a leave and license basis. Ms. Kapil,
learned Advocate for the 1st Defendant is at some pains to point out
that there is no money available to the estate even for te upkeep and
maintenance of the flat, which continues to deteriorate on daily
basis.

¶17

4.Clearly, the estate must be protected. The Plaintiff can have
no conceivable objection to this. None is stated on affidavit, as no
Affidavit in Reply has been filed, although the Notice of Motion
was served as long back as November 2014. The Plaintiff opposes
the application on the ground that the present application is one
under Section 269 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and is,
therefore, not maintainable. The Plaintiff is in error. The
application is for appointment of an Administrator under Section
247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and is properly made.

¶18

5.The Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai is appointed
Administrator of the estate of the deceased, i.e., Ms. Mrudulaben
Rajanikant Shah. He will proceed forthwith to take charge of the

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

920-NMS14-15.DOC

¶21

estate in its entirety, including the residential Flat No. 21,
“Rajhans” Building, 88, “G” Road, Marine Drive, Mumbai.

¶22

6.The 1st Defendant will initially make available sufficient
funds for the purposes of inviting bids for letting out this flat on a
leave and license basis for an optimal period of time. The Court
Receiver, as Administrator, will issue necessary directions for an
advertisement and will then make a report to this Court before the
bid is accepted. Administrator’s Report to be filed by the Court
Receiver once ready.

¶23

7. It is clarified that once the flat is given out on leave and license basis, the 1st Defendant will be entitled to a reimbursement of the initial advance made by her to the Administrator.

¶24

8. The Notice of Motion is disposed of in these terms.

¶25

9. List the suit for framing issues on 5th March 2015.

¶26

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Manoj Navinchandra Shah v. Usha B. Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Navinchandra Shah v. Usha B. Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarojkumar N. Agarwal and 4 Ors. Vs Sajjan N. Agarwal and 12 Ors.

Amratlal Bhanji Laxman Vs Kusum Prabhudas Laxman and 7 Ors.

Prasad T. Tendulkar Vs Rebecca Datta (Caveator)

Chandravadan N.Mathuria. Vs Pravinchandra Dwarkadas Dalal and 5 Ors.

Usha Ramrao Bhojane Vs Mangala Shivdas Dindokar and 6 Others

Mr. Noshir Rustom Aga Vs Behram Rustom Aga and Mrs. Kety Minoo Dastur