Disposed¶3

Janakraj Ramniklal Vakil v. Ramniklal Brijlal Ramchandra (Deceased)

Bombay HC1 Apr 2025IA/3834/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; testamentary and intestate jurisdiction; Interim Application No.3834 of 2024; Testamentary Petition No.1653 of 2012; post-grant amendment of Schedule of debts and securities; Reliance Industries shares of deceased; Additional Affidavit directed within two weeks; Arif S. Doctor, J.; 01 April 2025; Janakraj Ramniklal Vakil; deceased Ramniklal Brijlal Ramchandram (R.B. Ramchandram).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted at this stage; the Applicant is directed to file an Additional Affidavit within two weeks explaining (i) how it became aware of the deceased's shares in Reliance Industries and (ii) the basis for claiming the shares stood in the deceased's name at the time of his death. ¶3

Janakraj Ramniklal Vakil vs Ramniklal Brijlal Ramchandra (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶3

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant can sufficiently explain how it became aware of the fact that the deceased had shares in Reliance Industries. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

As matters stand, Learned Counsel for the Applicant does not sufficiently explain how the Applicant became aware of the fact that the deceased had shares in Reliance Industries.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

As matters stand, Learned Counsel for the Applicant does not sufficiently explain the basis on which it is claimed that the shares stood in the name of the deceased at the time of his death.

¶2

Key takeaways

To enable the Applicant to sufficiently explain both aspects, the Applicant is directed to file an Additional Affidavit, to be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction), Coram: Arif S. Doctor, J.; order dated 01 April 2025. Interim Application No.3834 of 2024 in Testamentary Petition No.1653 of 2012 (estate of deceased Ramniklal Brijlal Ramchandra alias Ramniklal B Ramchandram alias Ramniklal Brijlal alias Ramniklal Ramchandram alias R.B. Ramchandram), filed by Janakraj Ramniklal Vakil, Applicant/Petitioner. The Application sought a post-grant amendment to the Schedule of debts and securities appended to the Testamentary Petition, relating to shares in Reliance Industries claimed to have stood in the deceased's name at his death. Observing that Learned Counsel did not sufficiently explain (i) how the Applicant became aware that the deceased held such shares, or (ii) the basis for the claim that the shares stood in the deceased's name at death, the Court directed the Applicant to file an Additional Affidavit within two weeks to enable sufficient explanation of both aspects.

Janakraj Ramniklal Vakil v. Ramniklal Brijlal Ramchandra (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janakraj Ramniklal Vakil v. Ramniklal Brijlal Ramchandra (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijaykumar v Iyer Liquidator of Aditya Birla Idea Payments Bank Ltd(in Liquidation) vs Registrar of Companies(Mumbai)

Mr. Fredrick Fernandes (Deleted) and Ors. vs Mr.Ramkaran Shivram Yadav(Deleted)His LRS.1A.SMT.PARVATI Ramkaran Wd/O. Ramkaran S. Yadav and Ors.

Kaumudi P. Kothari vs Central Warehousing Corporation and Anr.

Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot S O.Shri Nemaram Gehlot vs Mehrunnisa Arif Lamba

Cello Plastic Industrial Works vs Royal Plast

Oerlikon Textile Gmbh and Co. Kg vs Himson Engineering Private Limited