Dismissed

Sanjay Khadiwala v. Shrimant Randhirsinh

Bombay HC16 Jul 2018NMT/170/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application to restore a dismissed testamentary petition, the High Court dismissed the motion. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate cleanliness of hands, as the underlying petition relied on a series of consistently fabricated and bogus documents regarding the testator's existence.

What did the court decide?

The Notice of Motion seeking restoration of the Testamentary Petition is dismissed. There are no orders as to costs.

Sanjay Khadiwala Vs Shrimant Randhirsinh — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶2

Shephali/sp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 170 OF 2017

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 491 OF 2013

¶6

Sanjay Khadiwala

¶7

aged 45 years residing at 564, M.G. Road,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Sole Executor
under the Last Will…Applicant

¶8

~ versus ~

¶9

1. Maneesh Bawa son of Late Shri Randhir S Bhalla

¶10

2. Summet Bawa son of Late Shri Randhir S Bhalla

¶11

3.Archana Bhalla
Wife of Late Shri Randhir S Bhalla,
All permanent residence of New Delhi,
residing at S-322A, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi 110 017 and whilst in
Mumbai residing at BPS Estate (Bawa
Parduman Singh Estate), Devidayal
Road, Mulund (West),
Mumbai 400 080.…Respondents

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

FORTHEAPPLICANTMr Neerav Merchant, with Mr Ishwar
Pahuja i/b Thakordas &
Madgavkar.

¶14

Page 1 of 8
16th July 2018

¶15

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶16

FORTHERESPONDENTSMr Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate,
with Mr Vishal Kanade, Mr Rohan
Dakshini, Ms Nikita Mishra, Ms
Sanaea Laskari, i/b M/s Federal &
Rashmikant.

¶17

CORAM :G.S.Patel, J. DATED :16th JULY 2018

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶19

1.On 27th June 2018 I allowed Chamber Summons (L) No. 36
of 2018 at the instance of third parties seeking impleadment in the
present Motion, filed by the original Probate Petitioner, Sanjay
Khadiwala (“Khadiwala”), seeking a restoration of the
Testamentary Petition after a delay of 780 days. The applicants in
the Chamber Summons said that the entire Probate Petition was
fraudulent and that Khadiwala was seeking to usurp property that
belonged to an ancestor of Applicants (“the Bhalla-Bawa family”).

¶20

2.The property in dispute is one: it is an enormous stretch of
land of some 16,00,389.34 sq yards at Mulund. The Bhalla-Bawa
family says that this land belonged to their ancestor Randhirsingh
Bhalla (“Bhalla”). Born on 5th April 1927, he was a resident of
Delhi. He died on 29th May 2014. The Bhalla-Bawa family says
Khadiwala has created an entirely fictitious testator named
‘Randhirsinh Bhala’, alleged to have been born on 9th June 1933
with no family or lineal descendants, and who supposedly died in
Indore on 25th October 2012. That is the dispute. Khadiwala claims
the Mulund property belonged to this Bhala, whose Will he

¶21

Page 2 of 8
16th July 2018

¶22

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶23

propounds. The Bhalla-Bawa family says that Khadiwala’s testator,
Bhala, is an entirely concocted figment and a myth. He never
existed. There was no such person. That is the dispute.

¶24

3.The question is whether I should restore this Motion or not.
First, there is the delay and the fact that the Petition was dismissed
by conditional order of 5th May 2015 for non-removal of office
objections. The only explanation in the Affidavit in Support is to be
found in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 and this is how those paragraphs
read:

¶25

5.I say that though the Order was passed on 5th May
2015 further steps in the matter could not be taken by me
since I was in the process of gathering the papers to
support an Application for compliance with the
requisitions.

¶26

6.I say that the Office of the Prothonotary and Senior
Master have taken out requisitions dated 2nd May 2013
and which for the sake of ready reference are set out
herein below alongwith the current status in the matter qua
the requisitions.

¶27

Particulars of RequisitionsRemarks/Status
Office Translation of Will being the Translated Copy is
Preliminary Objection.ready

¶28

7.I say that in view of the Order passed by this Hon’ble
Court dismissing the Petition, no steps for removal of the
requisitions could be taken, since the Petition was not on
the file of this Hon’ble Court since the day of the Order
passed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶29

4.On their own, these paragraphs are of little or no coherence.
If the only objection was that a translation of the Will was required,

¶30

Page 3 of 8
16th July 2018

¶31

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶32

then there was no ‘gathering of papers’ needed. It is pointless to say
that objections could not be removed since the Petition had been
dismissed. This is a Catch-22 that is often put out, but it is entirely
meaningless. An advocate has to make only a routine application,
even on a praecipe, and leave is granted to remove departmental
objections. None of this explains the delay of 780 days.

¶33

5.In the ordinary course, and had this been an ordinary matter,
perhaps an order of costs would have sufficed. But this is no
ordinary matter, and there is no ordinary order of costs that can be
made on this. For the expression ‘gathering the papers’ takes on a
more sinister turn when one sees what precisely Khadiwala is
supposed to have done.

¶34

6.In my previous order, I said that the considerable filings in the
Chamber Summons would be read into the present Motion, and this
is why I will therefore refer to those filings today. To begin with,
Khadiwala says very different things about his relationship with the
alleged deceased, Bhala. He first says that he, Khadiwala, was
Bhala’s nephew; that the alleged deceased was his uncle. This story
changes to his being a ‘caregiver’, the expression used in the alleged
Will. This is never explained. Next, we now find that possibly every
single document that Khadiwala ‘gathered’ turns out, albeit prima
facie, to be utterly false. This is not a question of this or that
document being merely discrepant. This is a case where document
after document after document is demonstrated to be entirely
concocted. A few examples should suffice.

¶35

Page 4 of 8
16th July 2018

¶36

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶37

7.Khadiwala claims that there was a Voter ID Card No.
MP/37/271/384158 in the name of his purported testator Bhala
from the Indore 271 constituency issued on 2nd December 1996.
The Mulund Police Station and the Collector and District Election
Officer, Indore have confirmed that no such Voter ID has ever been
issued for that legislative assembly.

¶38

8.Khadiwala claims that this testator had a membership of the
Yashwant Club, Membership No. R129. That club in Indore has
confirmed in writing that no one named ‘Randhirsinh Bhala’ was
ever a member of that club. Membership Card No. R129 is not on
their records. Significantly the photograph on the card is that of one
Laxmandas Uttamchandani also known as Laxmandas
Mulchandani, an ex-member, who died on 24th October 2012. This
Uttamchandani, as we shall see, comes to play quite a significant
role in Khadiwala’s documentation.

¶39

9.There is a PAN Card No. BGPPB1879J said to have been
issued in the name of Khadiwala’s alleged testator. The NSDL e-
governance report shows that this PAN Card was opened inter alia
on the basis of (i) the fake Voter ID Card; (ii) an incorrect address at
Saket Square which, as it happens, was the address of Laxmandas
Uttamchandani who ran a tourism business from there and which
his wife confirms; (iii) on the basis of a mobile No. 9301301826.
This mobile is apparently in the name of one Darash Kevat a
resident of Chattisgarh; and (iv) a photo ID which is in fact none
other then the hapless late Laxmandas Uttamchandani.

¶40

Page 5 of 8
16th July 2018

¶41

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶42

10.There is a passport which I have previously taken into
custody. There is a discrepancy as to the date of birth.

¶43

11.Then comes the question of the death certificate which shows
the alleged deceased’s address at 526, Patrakar Colony, Indore, MP.
Police investigations have found that the Municipal Corporation of
Indore issued the death certificate on an application from Khadiwala
himself, one that annexed the previously mentioned Voter ID and
PAN Card. In the Affidavits submitted along with the application,
Khadiwala said that this Randhirsinh was his uncle (father’s sister
husband). This is a very precise statement of the nature of kinship.
It is not the use of the word ‘uncle’ in the vernacular as is so
common in this country. Indeed there is nothing regarding the death
of the alleged Bhala that cannot be tied to an application made by
Khadiwala himself and all of it is based on documents that are
demonstrably false.

¶44

12.Throughout, Khadiwala has used Laxmandas
Mulchandani’s/ Uttamchandani’s photograph for making
representations to various authorities.

¶45

13.This litany of fabrication and preparation of utterly bogus
documents goes on for several pages in the Affidavit in Support of
the Chamber Summons which I am treating as an Affidavit in Reply
to the present Notice of Motion. What does Khadiwala say in
response to this? The Affidavits in the Chamber Summons went to
the stage of a sur-rejoinder. I find that in paragraph 5 of the Affidavit
in Reply, Khadiwala opens by saying once again that this

¶46

Page 6 of 8
16th July 2018

¶47

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶48

Randhirsinh Bhala was his uncle; or, more accurately, that he,
Khadiwala was Bhala’s nephew. There is then supposed to be a
family tree and this does not show Khadiwala at all. In regard to the
individual facts and the para-wise reply, in a table below paragraph
18 there is a tabulated statement in regard to the some of the
documents that I have mentioned above. Khadiwala accepts the
correctness of what the Bhalla-Bawa family said in regard to the
Voter ID, the PAN Card and the passport. As regards the
membership of Yashwant Club the answer is this: ‘was not a member
during lifetime’. I do not know how one can be a member after death,
so perhaps the less said of this the better. As regards the photograph
it simply says that the two photographs are different or not the same,
and nothing more.

¶49

14.In my view this is actually sufficient in itself to completely
dislodge the bona fides of the present Notice of Motion. This is the
clearest possible admission that there are documents here that are
entirely incorrect and got up. There is no denial whatsoever of what
the Bhalla-Bawa family says. On the contrary, Khadiwala admits the
averments by the Bhalla-Bawa family that these documents are all
fabrications.

¶50

15.An application such as this is always an application seeking a
relief that is both discretionary and equitable. It must be
demonstrated that no prejudice will be caused if the application is
allowed. When it is shown that very considerable prejudice will be
caused, and that there is no possibility of the applicant being able to
redress that balance or to mitigate that prejudice, then obviously
relief must be denied. This is therefore not merely a case where

¶51

Page 7 of 8
16th July 2018

¶52

Sanjay Khadiwala v Maneesh Bawa
& Ors
7-nmt170-17-F (1).doc

¶53

there is an inadequate explanation for a quite considerable delay.
This is a case where the entire underlying petition is itself
demonstrated to be utterly false and to which there is not even an
arguable response. As Mr Chinoy for the Bhalla-Bawa family points
out, it is utterly extraordinary that there should be a deceased with
no relatives, no movable property, no bank account and nothing at
all to his name except this gargantuan piece of land at Mulund, one
that is worth today probably more than the several ransoms of
multiple kings. It is quite obvious to me what is being attempted,
especially given land prices in Mumbai. To seek equity, the
applicant must do equity and must demonstrate equity; most of all
such an applicant must demonstrate a complete cleanliness of
hands. When it is shown, as it is in this case, that there is not one
merely discrepant document, but a long series of consistently false
documents, then I see no reason why the discretion of the Court
should be exercised in favour of an Applicant like Khadiwala.

¶54

16.Ordinarily I would have dismissed this Motion and would
have indeed imposed very severe costs on Khadiwala. I will do the
former, but not the latter. For Khadiwala finds himself with one
single piece of fortune, and that it is the fact that he has been
represented by Mr Merchant, who has conducted this case with
quite admirable restraint and fairness.

¶55

17.The Notice of Motion is dismissed. There will be no orders
as to costs.

¶56

(G.S. PATEL, J.)

¶57

Page 8 of 8
16th July 2018

Sanjay Khadiwala v. Shrimant Randhirsinh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Khadiwala v. Shrimant Randhirsinh

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

Hdb Finance Services Limited Vs Shri. Jetendra Vishanji Chheda and Anr.

Kirtikumar Nivratti Misal Vs Nivrutti Jaiwant Misal (Deceased)

Sanah Roshan Mansukhani Vs Purnima Ramchandra Puranik

Y.T Entertainment Ltd. Vs One More Thought Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and 2 ORSand Swati Vinayaka Real Estate Dev. Pvt. Ltd. andANR(

Jitendra Gopaldas S/O Gopaldas Bhatia and Anr. Vs Shiv Kumar Jatia S/O Subh Karan Jatia and 2 Ors.

Sharad Harish Goswami @ 108 Goswami Sharad Kumarji Vs Goswami Villabhlal Dwarkeshlalji Maharaj HUF (Vdg Huf) and 8 Ors.