Allowed

Sunita Nandakumar Wadekar v. Nandakumar Shantaram Wadekar (Deceased)

Bombay HC7 Jun 2016NMT/133/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner holding Letters of Administration sought payment of family pension from S & T Workshop. Court ordered authorities to pay the entire settled amount within four weeks and warned of contempt proceedings for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Order directing authorities to pay the entire settled family pension to the Petitioner within four weeks; threat of contempt proceedings for non-compliance.

Sunita Nandakumar Wadekar Vs Nandakumar Shantaram… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

46-NMT133-15.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 133 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 175 OF 2010

¶6

Nandkumar Shantaram Wadekar...Deceased
Versus
Sunita Nandkumar Wadekar…Petitioner

¶7

Mrs. Indrayani M. Koparkar, for the Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 7th June 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.The original Petitioner sought Letters of Administration to
the property and credits of her husband Nandkumar Shantaram
Wadekar. She obtained the Letters of Administration on 18th
February 2014. She has thereafter moved the Officers concerned of
S & T Workshop, Byculla, Central Railway, Mumbai to act on the
Letters of Administration and to release the pension of the deceased
Nandkumar Shantaram Wadekar in her favour. The Affidavit in
support of the present Notice of Motion indicates that the
Petitioner made repeated applications. This correspondence
indicates that the dues were computed in April 2015. Exhibit “F” is
a copy of the letter dated 23rd May 2015 from one Mr. K.

¶11

Page 1 of 2
7th June 2016

¶12

46-NMT133-15.DOC

¶13

Padmasudaran to Mrs. Koparkar, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner admitting that the final settlement dues including family
pension had been passed in favour of the Petitioner Smt. Sunita
Nandkumar Wadekar. The family pension was supposedly then
under process with the Associate Account Office, Parel. Till date,
however, nothing has been paid to the Petitioner. Mrs. Koparkar
makes this statement on instructions.

¶14

2.The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a).

¶15

3.The Authorities concerned of the S & T Workshop, Byculla,
Mumbai shall, acting on production of an authenticated copy of this
order, ensure that the entire amount as settled be paid to the
Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, i.e., on or before
8th July 2016. Let it be known to these Authorities that non-
compliance of this order will be treated as an act of contempt and
will be dealt with accordingly.

¶16

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

¶17

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶18

Page 2 of 2
7th June 2016

Sunita Nandakumar Wadekar v. Nandakumar Shantaram Wadekar (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Nandakumar Wadekar v. Nandakumar Shantaram Wadekar (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejraj Singh Anand Vs Amardeep Kaur Bindra

Mrs Nilima Yogesh Madhvani Vs Bharati Amal Jhaveri (Caveator)

Mrs Nilima Yogesh Madhvani Vs Sheela Padamkumar Gupta (Caveator)

Dilip Bhagwandas Kadam Vs Pramila Bhagwandas Kadam and 3 Ors. (Caveators)

Ramesh Guneshwar Wagle Vs Ramesh Vitthalrao Gaitonde and Rajeshree Ramesh Wagle (Applicant)

Vinita Ankit Verma Vs Ankit Bhagwaticharan Verma (Deceased)