Disposed

Leslie Lamond v. Mr. Rusi Burjorji Master and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2016NMT/148/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Defendants' Notice of Motion to seek deposit of license fees was misdirected in probate proceedings. The Defendants filed a separate Administration Suit for such relief. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to deposit the admitted amount of Rs. 48,000 in Court.

What did the court decide?

Cancelled the Notice of Motion. Ordered Plaintiff to deposit Rs. 48,000 in Court within four weeks.

Leslie Lamond Vs Mr. Rusi Burjorji Master and Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

21-NMT148-14.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 148 OF 2014

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 82 OF 2014

¶6

IN

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 254 OF 2013

¶8

...Plaintiff

¶9

Osborne Cecil Lamond...Plaintiff
Versus
Rusi Burjorji Master & Another…Defendants

¶10

Ms. Sejal Shah, i/b Mr. Sandeep Manubarwala, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Prashant Tikare, i/b Ms. Zenobia Irani, for the Defendants.

¶11

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 29th August 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.The present Notice of Motion by the Defendants is
misdirected. It seeks that the Petitioner be made to deposit some
license fees that he is said to have received in respect of the license
granted of the deceased's flat at Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053.
It is not in dispute that this flat is now in possession of the
Defendants. The claim is for deposit of an amount said to have been
received by the Plaintiff in the past. The Plaintiff admits having
collected some license fees, but only for a period of two months.
The Defendants say that the license fees collected were for a longer
period. There is no dispute that the amount of license fees is Rs.

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

29th August 2016

¶16

21-NMT148-14.DOC

¶17

24,000/- per month. The Defendants have separately filed a
Administration Suit. This relief sought in the present Notice of
Motion should be appropriately sought in that Administration Suit.
It cannot be sought by the Defendants in a probate proceeding.

¶18

2.The Notice of Motion is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty
to file a fresh Notice of Motion for the same or similar reliefs in the
Defendants' Administration Suit.

¶19

3.Since the Plaintiff has admitted receipt of an amount of Rs.
24,000/- per month for two months, that amount is required to be
deposited in Court. It will be held to the credit of the
Administration Suit. That deposit is to be made within a period of
four weeks from today. Upon deposit, that amount will be invested
by the Protohonotary & Senior Master in the usual form.

¶20

4.An attempt is made by both the Defendants to tender
Affidavits in Reply. Neither Affidavit in Reply is taken on record for
want of continuous paging. Liberty to the parties to file their
respective Affidavits in Reply after correcting the paging.

¶21

5.List the Testamentary Suit for framing issues on 13th
September 2016.

¶22

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶23

Page 2 of 2
29th August 2016

Leslie Lamond v. Mr. Rusi Burjorji Master and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leslie Lamond v. Mr. Rusi Burjorji Master 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

Kamalrukh Tehmul Sethna Vs Tehmul Burjor Sethna and Devina Panchal and 2 Ors.(Co-Defendant)

Narayan Karsan Wala Vs Mr. Karsanbhai Danabhai Wala @ Karsan Danawala (Deceased)

Kamalrukh Tehmul Sethna Vs Tehmul Burjor Sethna and Devina Panchal and 2 Ors.(Co-Defendant)

Rajesh R. Kulkarni and Another Vs Ratnakar Kulkarni (Applicant) (Original Caveator)

Jitendra N. Trivedi Vs R.N. Shah and Ors.

Osborne Cecil Lamond Vs Rusi Burjorji Master and Anr.