Dismissed¶36

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant and Ant v. Nina Anwar Merchant and 20 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Nov 2025APP/99/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC division bench (Colabawalla & Jamsandekar, JJ.) dismisses Defendant No.10's appeal against Single Judge order dated 23-09-2024 in IA 1736/2023 in Suit 181/2023 directing deposit in Court of Rs.3.5 crores (FDs with DCB Bank and ICICI Bank Ltd, with accrued interest) within two weeks; testatrix's joint bank account, Panvel property sale proceeds ~Rs.6 crores, post-death withdrawal of Rs.5.80 crores, residual balance Rs.6,66,785.75; exclusive-entitlement claim negated; contempt and jail warning for non-compliance; IA 6490/2025 disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The Division Bench is in full agreement with the finding given by the learned Single Judge negating Defendant No.10's claim of exclusive entitlement to the monies in the testatrix's joint bank account. ¶31

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant and Ant vs Nina Anwar Merchant and 20 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether Defendant No.10 was exclusively entitled to the amount in the bank account jointly held with the testatrix, the learned Single Judge having negated that contention. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing wrong in Defendant No.10 being directed to deposit in this Court the amount of Rs.3.5 Crores lying in Fixed Deposits with DCB Bank and ICICI Bank Limited along with interest accrued thereon till the date of liquidation of the said Fixed Deposits.

¶31

Key takeaways

The deposit direction is justified because Rs.5.80 Crores was withdrawn from the joint account by Defendant No.10 shortly after the testatrix's demise leaving only Rs.6,66,785.75, and the Fixed Deposits with DCB Bank and ICICI Bank Limited were created from the withdrawn amounts; the learned Single Judge was therefore fully justified in directing deposit of Rs.3.5 Crores with accrued interest.ratio¶31
Defendant No.10 is directed to comply with the learned Single Judge's directions regarding deposit of Rs.3.5 Crores (along with accrued interest) in this Court within two weeks.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Division Bench of B. P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.), November 14, 2025 — Appeal No.99 of 2025 in IA No.1736 of 2023 in Suit No.181 of 2023 (with IA No.6490 of 2025): Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant & Anr. (original Defendant No.10) v. Nina Anwar Merchant & Ors. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 23rd September 2024, which had directed Defendant No.10 to bring back Rs.3.5 Crores lying in Fixed Deposits with DCB Bank and ICICI Bank Limited, together with interest accrued till the date of liquidation, and deposit the same in Court. Upholding the direction, the Bench expressed full agreement with the Single Judge's finding negating Defendant No.10's claim of exclusive entitlement to the monies in the testatrix's joint bank account (sale proceeds of approximately Rs.6 Crores from her Panvel property), noting that Rs.5.80 Crores was withdrawn shortly after her demise leaving only Rs.6,66,785.75, and that the Fixed Deposits were created from the withdrawn amounts. Compliance was directed within two weeks, with an express warning that non-compliance would invite contempt action and imprisonment. With the appeal dismissed, nothing survived in IA No.6490 of 2025 and it was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

[email protected]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL NO.99 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1736 OF 2023 IN

¶4

SUIT NO.181 OF 2023

¶5

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant & Anr.

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Nina Anwar Merchant & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6490 OF 2025 IN APPEAL NO.99 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1736 OF 2023 IN SUIT NO.181 OF 2023

¶11

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant .. Applicant

¶12

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶13

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant & Anr. .. Appellants

¶14

Versus

¶15

Nina Anwar Merchant & Ors.

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Mr. Pratik K. Shah , Advocates for the Appellant/Applicant.

¶18

MANUSHREE NESARIKAR

¶19

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date: 2025.11.18 13:12:35 +0530

¶20

Mr. Rohan Sawant a/w Mr. Agam Mehta, Mr. Aman Saraf a/w Ms. Vishakha Chokhani i/b. Jayakar and Partners , Advocates for the Respondent No.1.

¶21

Page 1 of 4 NOVEMBER 14, 2025

Nesarikar

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2025

¶25

P. C.

¶26

The above Appeal is filed by the original Defendant No.10 seeking to challenge the order dated 23^rd September 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The challenge is laid to the impugned order insofar as it directs Defendant No.10 to bring back the amount of Rs.3.5 Crores deposited with DCB Bank and ICICI Bank Limited along with interest accrued thereon till the date of liquidation, and deposit the same in this Court within a period of four weeks from 23^rd September 2024.

¶27

As to why Defendant No.10 has been directed to deposit this amount, the discussion of the learned Single Judge can be found from paragraph 35 onwards of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge noted that the testatrix was entitled to a property in Panvel and which was sold by her. The sale proceeds thereof (approximately Rs.6 Crores) were deposited in the bank account jointly held by the testatrix and Defendant No.10. After the death of the testatrix, Defendant No.10 contended that he is exclusively entitled to the amount in the said account. This contention of

¶28

Page 2 of 4 NOVEMBER 14, 2025

¶29

[email protected]

¶30

Defendant No.10 was negated by the learned Single Judge, not only on the facts, but also considering the law on the subject.

¶31

We need not burden this judgment with the law already discussed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Suffice it to state that we are in full agreement with the finding given by the learned Single Judge on this aspect. We, therefore, do not find anything wrong in Defendant No.10 being directed to deposit in this Court the amount of Rs.3.5 Crores lying in Fixed Deposits with DCB Bank and ICICI Bank Limited along with interest accrued thereon till the date of liquidation of the said Fixed Deposits. We find that this direction has been passed because an amount of Rs.5.80 Crores was withdrawn from the said joint bank account of the testatrix by Defendant No.10 shortly after the demise of the testatrix. The balance left in the said bank account was only of Rs.6,66,785.75. It appears that the FDs with DCB Bank and ICICI Bank Limited have been created from the amounts withdrawn by Defendant No.10 from the said joint bank account. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in directing Defendant No.10 to deposit the amount of Rs.3.5 Crores (along with the accrued interest) in this Court.

¶32

We, accordingly, direct Defendant No.10 to comply with the

¶33

Page 3 of 4 NOVEMBER 14, 2025

¶34

[email protected]

¶35

directions given by the learned Single Judge regarding the deposit of Rs.3.5 Crores [along with accrued interest] in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. We make it clear to Defendant No.10 (the Appellant herein) that if these directions are not complied with, we will not hesitate to haul him up for contempt and send him to jail.

¶36

The above Appeal is accordingly dismissed as it lacks merit. In light of the dismissal of the above Appeal, nothing survives in the above Interim Application and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶38

[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR , J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶39

Page 4 of 4 NOVEMBER 14, 2025

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant and Ant v. Nina Anwar Merchant and 20 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farid Abdul Mohammed Merchant and Ant v. Nina Anwar Merchant and 20 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Iqbal Hussain Shaikh and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the G. P. and Ors.

Benteler Automotive China Investment Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (It), Circle 1, Pune and Ors.

Ashok Khandelwal vs Union of India

Anantray R. Doshi (Huf) and 23 Ors. vs Lok Everest Co. Op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Antarctica Trading Company Private Limited vs Propshare Office Parks Pvt. Ltd.

Bharat Amarchand Doshi vs Sudha Aziz Jhaveri and 5 Ors.