Disposed

Lalita Ratanchand Baldota and Anr. v. Mrs. Gulabbai Ratanchand Baldota (Since Deceased) and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2016NMT/104/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court recorded Consent Terms in a succession dispute after verifying the petitioners understood them. The petitions were disposed in accordance with the terms, and a decree was expedited due to the petitioner's age.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous Petition and Testamentary Petition disposed in accordance with Consent Terms; Decree to be drawn and issued on priority.

Lalita Ratanchand Baldota and Anr. Vs Mrs… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

921-NMT-104-2015.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.104 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.111 OF 2015

¶6

IN

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION 625 OF 2000

¶8

Lalita Ratanchand Baldota and Another… Petitioners
Versus
Pushpa w/o. Of Shantilal Lunkad…Respondent

¶9

Mr. Albert Talegaonkar, with Mr. Salil A. Talegaonkar, i/b Bhaishankar Kanga and Girdharlal for the Petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Ankita Singhania, with Mr. Amit Mehta i/b M/s. Mahimtura and Company for the Respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr. H.W. Kane, with Mr. Rahul Kadam i/b M/s. W.S. Kane and Company for Intervenor, Mr. Narendra Baldota.

¶12

Mr. Vishal Kanade, with Mr. Sachin Kudalkar, i/b Madekar and Company for Respondent No.3.

¶13

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 2nd September 2016

¶14

PC:-

¶15

1.The Miscellaneous Petition and the Testamentary Petition
have both been settled. The 1st Petitioner is present in Court. She is
82 years old. The Consent Terms explicitly say that they have been
explained and interpreted to her in Marathi by Advocate. Mr.

¶16

Page 1 of 3
2nd September 2016

¶17

921-NMT-104-2015.DOC

¶18

Manjrekar of the Chief Translator's Office is present. At the
instance of the parties, Mr. Manjrekar has read over, explained and
interpreted the Consent Terms to the Petitioner in Marathi in
Court. She confirms that she has understood the Consent Terms
and that they are correct. She accepts them and confirms her
signature or mark on the Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are
also signed by the 2nd Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent as also the
Advocates for the parties.

¶19

2.On a previous occasion, a statement was made on behalf of
the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent that the settlement that was
then proposed, and which is now reflected in the Consent Terms
given to me today, does not affect the title of a transferee from one
of the heirs of the deceased. This statement is noted. It will continue
as part of the present order as well.

¶20

3.Similarly, Mr. Kanade who appears for Respondent No.3,
states that that Respondent is not a party to the Consent Terms.
There was some correspondence previously between the 3rd
Respondent and one or more of the parties to this litigation. It is
clarified that these Consent Terms do not affect any rights of the 3rd
Respondent.

¶21

4.The 4th Respondent is a formal party and no reliefs have been
sought against her nor she is affected by these Consent Terms.

¶22

5.I have seen the Consent Terms. They are in order. They are
not contrary to law and I am satisfied that they have been drawn by

¶23

Page 2 of 3
2nd September 2016

¶24

921-NMT-104-2015.DOC

¶25

the parties of their own volition and reflect their true intention. The
Consent Terms are taken on record and marked “X” for
identification. The undertakings in the Consent Terms are accepted
as undertakings to the Court. The Miscellaneous Petition and the
Testamentary Petition are disposed in accordance with the Consent
Terms.

¶26

6. A decree is to be drawn in accordance with this order.

¶27

7. The drawn up decree is expedited and will be issued on a priority basis especially in view of the age of the 1st Petitioner.

¶28

8. Refund of Court Fees, if any, in accordance with the Rules.

¶29

9. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

10.All parties including the proposed intervenor are entitled to
apply for certified and authenticated copies of this order.

¶31

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶32

Page 3 of 3
2nd September 2016

Lalita Ratanchand Baldota and Anr. v. Mrs. Gulabbai Ratanchand Baldota (Since Deceased) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Ratanchand Baldota and Anr. v. Mrs. Gulabbai Ratanchand Baldota (Since Deceased) and 3 Ors.

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

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Romika Industries

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Romika Industries

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Shakti Chemical Industry

Mahernosh Jamshed Homavazir and Shirin Mehernosh Homavazir (Plaintiff NO.1 and 2) Vs -

Shehzin R. Bagla Vs Ronnie Yazdi Bagla

Sanjay Ramesh Kale and 4 Others Vs Chandrashekhar Rangrao Kale (Since Deceased) and 6 Others