Disposed

Jatin Virendra Damani v. Sushila Virendra Damani

Bombay HC24 Jan 2024IA/2051/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two petitions for letters of administration with Will, the High Court of Bombay accepted evidence that citations were validly served on deceased parents' surviving son and his widow residing in USA via e-mail and WhatsApp after they refused to provide physical addresses.

What did the court decide?

The petitions for declaring service via e-mail and WhatsApp as valid were allowed; applications disposed of accordingly.

Jatin Virendra Damani Vs Sushila Virendra Damani — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

43&46_IA2051_23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2051 OF 2023

¶4

¶5

PETITION NO.1069 OF 2021

¶6

AND

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.16991 OF 2023

¶8

¶9

PETITION NO.1070 OF 2021

¶10

Jatin Virendra Damani … Applicant / Petitioner

¶11

Sushila Virendra Damani … Deceased

¶12

Ms. Sneha Vani Marjadi for Applicant / Petitioner.

¶13

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2024

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

. In these two petitions filed for grant of letters of administration with Will pertaining to the deceased parents of the petitioner, the present applications have been moved for declaring that the widow and son of the brother of the petitioner have been duly served through e-mail and WhatsApp .

¶16

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate:2024.01.2513:16:28 +0530

¶17

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the deceased parents had three children i.e. two sons and one daughter. The petitioner is one of the sons, while the other son expired and his widow and son are residing in the United States of America (USA). The married daughter has given consent in the present petitions.

¶18

It is submitted that citations were to be served on the widow and son of the brother of the petitioner i.e. the other son of the deceased parents. The petitioner had requested them to forward their address

¶19

1/2

¶20

43&46_IA2051_23.doc

¶21

where they are staying in USA. But, they refused to give details. As a consequence, the petitioner was constrained to serve the citations and the papers pertaining to the present petition by way of e-mail and WhatsApp . Copies of the e-mails dated 09.02.2022 are annexed to the applications and read receipts pertaining thereto dated 10.02.2022 are also annexed. Similarly, copies of the WhatsApp messages along with the citation and the papers pertaining to the petitions sent by the WhatsApp have been placed on record. The aforesaid documents indicate that the WhatsApp messages were also read by the recipient.

¶22

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the aforesaid widow and son of the brother of the petitioner i.e. Ms. Harsha Jitendra Damani and Mr. Manthan Jitendra Damani have been duly served with the citations.

¶23

The department shall now proceed in accordance with law on the basis that the citations have been indeed served in the aforesaid manner by the petitioner.

¶24

The applications are disposed of.

¶25

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶26

Minal Parab

¶27

2/2

Jatin Virendra Damani v. Sushila Virendra Damani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatin Virendra Damani v. Sushila Virendra Damani

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

Amul Jagjivandas Parekh Vs Girish Jagjivandas Parekh and Ors.

Rajendra Yashvantrao Rajeshirke Vs Yashvantrao Manysaheb Rajeshirke (Deceased)

Chandrahas Arvind Kolhatkar Vs Sharad Ramchandra Kolhatkar (Deceased)

Nilesh Champaklal Shah vs Prakash Champaklal Shah

Anjali Amol Ukidave Vs Amol Vinayak Ukidave (Deceased)

Framji Petit and Anr. Vs Phiroze J. Katrak and 3 Ors.