Allowed¶21

Atul Jethalal Sejpal v. Narendra Shivlal Trikmani

Bombay HC5 Dec 2025IA/6409/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 90-day delay in filing affidavit in support of caveat; testamentary and intestate jurisdiction; Bombay High Court; Milind N. Jadhav, J.; caveator as Class-I legal heir; petition by executors of Will; estate of Jethalal Swarupchand Sejpal; Caveat (L) No. 11641 of 2025; Petition No. 830 of 2025; Will No. 328 of 2025; IA allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b); parties urged towards amicable resolution.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 90 days in filing the affidavit in support of the Caveat condoned; Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b); Department directed to proceed further strictly in accordance with law. ¶21

Atul Jethalal Sejpal vs Narendra Shivlal Trikmani — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 90 days in filing the affidavit in support of the Caveat ought to be condoned.

¶18

Court's answer

The delay of 90 days in filing the affidavit in support of the Caveat is condoned, considering that the Applicant is a Class-I legal heir of the deceased and in view of the nexus of the Applicant with the deceased and the reasons stated in the Application, in the interest of justice.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶21

Key takeaways

The Department is directed to proceed further strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶22
The Court expressed the opinion that the parties should make an earnest effort towards arriving at an amicable resolution without prejudice to their rights and contentions, if possible for them to do so.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction), Milind N. Jadhav, J., December 5, 2025: In Interim Application No. 6409 of 2025 in Caveat (L) No. 11641 of 2025 in Petition No. 830 of 2025 with Will No. 328 of 2025 concerning the estate of the deceased Jethalal Swarupchand Sejpal, the Caveator/Applicant Atul Jethalal Sejpal, a Class-I legal heir of the deceased, sought condonation of a 90-day delay in filing the affidavit in support of his Caveat. The Petitioners (executors of the Will) argued that no sufficient cause or due diligence was shown and urged rejection of the Application. Holding that the Applicant's nexus with the deceased and the reasons stated in the Application justified condonation in the interest of justice, the Court condoned the delay, allowed the Application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), directed the Department to proceed further strictly in accordance with law, and expressed the opinion that the parties should endeavour to arrive at an amicable resolution without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

¶1

58. IA-6409-25.docx

¶2

Amberkar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6409 OF 2025

¶6

¶7

CAVEAT (L) NO. 11641 OF 2025 IN

¶8

PETITION NO. 830 OF 2025

¶9

WITH

¶10

WILL NO. 328 OF 2025

¶11

Jethalal Swarupchand Sejpal .. Deceased Atul Jethalal Sejpal .. Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Narendra Shivlal Trikmani & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Atul Jethalal Sejpal .. Caveator

¶12

Mr. Ryan D'Souza a/w Mr. Harshavardhan G. Khambete a/w Mr. Deep Shah, Advocate for Applicant / Caveator in IA

¶13

Mr. B.G. Saraf, Advocate for Petitioners / Executors

¶14

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2025

¶15

P. C.:

¶16

1. Heard Mr. D'Souza, learned Advocate for Applicant / Caveator

¶17

and Mr. Saraf, learned Advocate for Petitioners / Executors.

¶18

2. Perused the Interim Application. Considering the fact that Applicant is Class-I legal heir of the deceased, I am inclined to condone the delay of 90 days in filing the affidavit in support of Caveat.

¶19

1 of 2

¶20

58. IA-6409-25.docx

¶21

3. Mr. Saraf appearing on behalf of Petitioners who are executors of Will would persuade me to consider that no sufficient cause has been given so as to condone the delay of 90 days and there is no due diligence on the part of Caveator. He would therefore urge to reject the Application. However, in view of the nexus of Applicant with the deceased and the reasons stated in the Application, in the interest of justice delay deserves to be condoned. Hence, it is condoned. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶22

4. Department is directed to proceed further strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

5. After hearing learned Advocates appearing at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that parties should make an earnest effort towards arriving at an amicable resolution without prejudice to their rights and contentions if it is possible for them to do so. This Court expresses faith in both the learned Advocates at the bar to aid in reconciliation.

¶24

6. Interim Application is disposed.

¶25

Amberkar

¶26

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶27

Digitally signed RAVINDRAMOHAN by RAVINDRAMOHANAMBERKAR AMBERKAR Date: 2025.12.06 17:59:05 +0530

¶28

2 of 2

Atul Jethalal Sejpal v. Narendra Shivlal Trikmani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Jethalal Sejpal v. Narendra Shivlal Trikmani

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

Hoshang Jehangir Khan vs Khushroo Behramshaw Mogal

Asif Abbas Jagrala vs Nurabhai Alias Noor Mohd Miyajibahi Jagarala (Deceased)

Neetu Dnyanesh Diwan d/o Guiab Sabhapati Dubey vs Sabhapati S/o Kamlaprasad Dubey (Deceased)

Shannon Mikhail Lobo vs Lawrence Joseph Lobo Deceased

Kaneez Mohamed Motala vs Mariam Suleman Hariff alias Mariambibi Suleman Hariff alias Mariambibi Ibrahim Mamoojee

Gabriel Mordecial Talkar vs Benson Nathan Hyams