Allowed

Narendra Kumar Bachubhai Shah and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar Bachubhai Shah and Bachubhai Bhaidas Shah (Deceased)

Bombay HC17 Jan 2024IA/5290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim applications seeking dismissal of caveats in testamentary probate petitions were allowed. The caveats and supporting affidavits were filed after unexplained delay with no condonation applications; following Mahesh Atalrai Keswani, the court held compliance with Rules 401 and 402 mandatory and dismissed the caveats.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; both caveats dismissed; department to proceed further in accordance with law.

Narendra Kumar Bachubhai Shah and Anr. Vs Rajesh… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

7.IA.5290.2022.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5290 OF 2022

¶4

IN CAVEAT NO. 125 OF 2021

¶5

¶6

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 3135 OF 2019

¶7

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS SHRINIVAS MALANI MALANI Date: 2024.01.18 17:00:57 +0530

¶8

Bachubhai Bhaidas Shah alias Vasantlal Bhaidas Shah alias Bachubhai alias Vasantlal

¶9

...Deceased

¶10

Narendra Iumar Bachubhai Shah & Anr. ...Applicants/Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Rajesh Kumar Bachubhai Shah

¶13

...Caveator/ Respondent

¶14

AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5305 OF 2022 IN CAVEAT (LODGING) NO. 9978 OF 2021 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 3157 OF 2019

¶15

¶16

 Mr. Vijay Badgujar i/b S.U. Lakdawala, for Applicants/Petitioners. *** CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J DATE : 17^th JANUARY, 2024.

¶17

In these petitions filed by the executors for grant of probate of subject Wills, interim applications have been filed for dismissal of the caveats. These applications were argued on 26^th June, 2023, when the learned counsel for the applicants in both the proceedings relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Atalrai Keswani Vs. Suresh Atalrai Keswani¹ . The learned counsel

¶18

1 2013(5) MhL.J 825

Page1 of 3

Shrikant

7.IA.5290.2022.doc

appearing for the caveators was granted time to respond to the same. The hearing was adjourned to 17^th July, 2023.

¶23

On 17^th July, 2023, this Court referred to the earlier order dated 26^th June, 2023 and found that there was no appearance on behalf of the caveators on 17^th July, 2023. Thereupon, one more opportunity was granted to the caveators to appear through their advocate, to respond to the present applications.

¶24

Today, when the applications are called out for hearing, while learned counsel for the applicants in both the petitions is ready for arguments, there is no appearance on behalf of the caveators.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicants brought to the notice of this Court, the material on record. It is found that in Testamentary Petition No. 3135 of 2019, the caveat was filed after delay of 11 days and the affidavit in support of the caveat was filed after delay of 112 days. In Testamentary Petition No. 3157 of 2019, the caveat was filed after delay of 11 days, while the affidavit in support of the caveat was filed after delay of 115 days.

¶26

Admittedly there are no applications for condonation of delay in filing the caveats and /or the affidavits in support of the caveats.

Page2 of 3

Shrikant

7.IA.5290.2022.doc

In the case of Mahesh Atalrai Keswani Vs. Suresh Atalrai

¶31

Keswani (supra), this Court referred to Rules 401 and 402 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 and held in similar circumstances that since compliance with the aforesaid Rules is mandatory, failure to comply must lead to the caveats being dismissed.

¶32

In view of the material brought to the notice of this Court and in the light of the position of law, the applications are allowed and the caveats are dismissed.

¶33

The department shall now proceed further in accordance

with law.

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Page3 of 3

Shrikant

Narendra Kumar Bachubhai Shah and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar Bachubhai Shah and Bachubhai Bhaidas Shah (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Bachubhai Shah and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar Bachubhai Shah and Bachubhai Bhaidas Shah (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshad Pravin Gohil Vs Nanji Vishram Gohil(Deceased)

Sushant Ramchandra Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilima Harish Parikh vs State of Maharashtra

Standard Chartered Bank Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Subramaniam Ramanathan Vs Rajam Subramaniam Alias Rajam Subramanian (Deceased)

Vatsala Shrikant Kapadi Vs Pandurang Gangaram Mahajan