Meena Vijay Mehta vs Sharat Menon and 8 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Meena Vijay Mehta vs Sharat Menon and 8 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal (L) No.6140 of 2024 dismissed as withdrawn (no order as to costs; Interim Application No.822 of 2024 disposed as nothing survives). Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024 disposed of with directions: (i) Appellant to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as ad-hoc royalty and security to the Court Receiver within four weeks; (ii) Appellant to clear all society outgoings and property taxes of Flat 3B within four weeks and keep paying future outgoings/taxes on time while occupying Flat 3B as agent of the Court Receiver (statements accepted as undertakings); (iii) upon payment, Appellant to file an application before the learned single Judge within one week to vary the Receiver-determined royalty/security, furnishing proof of payment, failing which the application shall be dismissed and the Receiver's fixation (royalty Rs.69,000/- per month; security Rs.2,07,000/-) shall stand; (iv) the Rs.4,00,000/- figure is expressly ad-hoc only and the learned single Judge to decide the application on merits uninfluenced by it, free to increase, reduce or hold nothing payable. Delay of 72 days condoned and Interim Application No.823 of 2024 disposed. No order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant, admittedly the legally wedded wife of the Deceased for whom Flat 3B was her 'matrimonial home' / 'shared household', ought to pay any royalty or security (as fixed by the Court Receiver) for continuing to occupy Flat 3B as agent of the Court Receiver. +1 more

Court's answer

As an ad-hoc arrangement, the Appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards royalty and security for occupying Flat 3B as the agent of the Court Receiver, such payment to be made to the Receiver within four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

Appeal (L) No.6140 of 2024 (challenging the Order dated 10th October 2023 granting interim relief including the appointment of the Court Receiver) is dismissed as withdrawn, the Appellant having stated she has no objection to the appointment of the Receiver of the Deceased's assets including Flat 3B; there shall be no order as to costs, and nothing survives in Interim Application No.822 of 2024, which is disposed of accordingly.

Key takeaways

The delay of 72 days in filing Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024 is formally condoned and Interim Application No.823 of 2024 is disposed of.ratio¶¶35
In addition, the Appellant is to clear all society outgoings and property taxes etc. of Flat 3B within four weeks; as per her statement, accepted by the Court as undertakings, all future society outgoings and property taxes shall be paid on time until she ceases to occupy Flat 3B as agent of the Court Receiver.ratio¶¶54
Once the payments are made, the Appellant is to apply to the learned single Judge, within one week of making the payments, for varying the quantum of royalty and security deposit determined by the Receiver; proof of payment of the society outgoings and of the ad-hoc royalty is to be furnished to the learned single Judge along with that application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (OOCJ), Division Bench (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.), 06.03.2025 — Disposed of two appeals filed by Meena Vijay Mehta (Appellant, original Defendant No.1), the widow of the testator Mr. Gopal Menon (Deceased), arising from interim orders in an Administration Suit brought by the Executors (Respondent No.1) under the Deceased's Will dated 28.03.2002. (1) Appeal (L) No.6140 of 2024, challenging the Order dated 10.10.2023 by which the learned single Judge granted interim relief including appointment of a Court Receiver over the entire estate, was DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN — the Appellant stating she had no objection to the Receiver's appointment over the Deceased's assets including Flat No.3B, Jharna Malay Niketan, 31, Union Park, Chembur (Flat 3B), which the original Plaintiff claims is bequeathed to the Deceased's daughters from his first wife; Interim Application No.822 of 2024 disposed accordingly; no costs. (2) Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024 challenged the Order dated 10.11.2023 appointing the Appellant as agent of the Court Receiver, pursuant to which the Receiver fixed royalty @ Rs.69,000/- per month and security deposit of Rs.2,07,000/- (3 months' royalty). The Appellant's sole grievance was the royalty/security: she contended that, being admittedly the Deceased's legally wedded wife, Flat 3B was her 'matrimonial home' / 'shared household' and no royalty or security ought to be fixed. The Division Bench DID NOT DECIDE that controversy: it disposed of the appeal on an ad-hoc basis — (i) Appellant to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as ad-hoc royalty and security to the Receiver within four weeks; (ii) Appellant to clear all society outgoings and property taxes of Flat 3B within four weeks and continue paying them (statements accepted as undertakings); (iii) within one week of payment, Appellant to apply to the learned single Judge to vary the Receiver-determined quantum, furnishing proof of payment; on default, the application to be dismissed and the Receiver's fixation (Rs.69,000/- p.m.; Rs.2,07,000/-) to stand. The Bench expressly clarified that the Rs.4,00,000/- figure is only ad-hoc and the learned single Judge is to decide uninfluenced by it, free to increase, reduce or hold nothing payable — leaving the matrimonial-home contention open. Delay of 72 days in filing condoned (IA 823 of 2024 disposed). The Court noted the Suit had been wrongly transferred to the Hon'ble City Civil Court at Bombay and that the contesting parties will jointly seek its transfer back to this Court. No order as to costs in either appeal.

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

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

APPEAL (L) NO.6140 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.822 OF 2024

WITH

APPEAL (L) NO.6150 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.823 OF 2024

Meena Vijay Mehta

.. Appellant

Versus

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2025.03.1010:48:21 +0530

Sharat Menon & Ors.

.. Respondents

Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w Adv. Vineet Jagtap i/b. Adv. Niranjan Jagtap and Co., Advocate for the Appellant

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Ms. Chaitrika Patki and Ms. Apurva Sanglikar i/b. Vidhii Partners, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1

Mr. Amol Sharma (Through V.C.), Advocate for the Respondent No. 6, ICICI Bank Ltd.

Ms. Gulnar Mistry a/w Ms. Deepanjali Mishra i/b. M/s. Hudda and Associates, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9

Mr. S. K. Dhekale, Court Receiver present

Mr. N. C. Pawar, Officer on Special Duty, Court Receiver present

Mohite

Page 1 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATE: MARCH 6, 2025

P. C.

1. Appeal (L) No.6140 of 2024 is filed by the Appellant – Meena Vijay Mehta (original Defendant No.1) challenging the Order dated 10^th October 2023. By this Order, the learned single Judge of this Court granted interim relief in the Administration Suit filed by the Executors (i.e. Respondent No.1 – original Plaintiffs) of the last Will and Testament dated 28^th March 2002 (for short the “said Will” ) of one Mr. Gopal Menon (for short the “Deceased” ). One of the interim reliefs granted was the appointment of a Court Receiver of the entire estate of the Deceased with directions to take custody of the assets of the Deceased lying with or in possession of original Defendant No.1 (the Appellant), and to preserve the entire estate of the Deceased for the beneficiaries under the said Will dated 28^th March 2022. One of the assets belonging to the estate of the Deceased was Flat No.3B, Jharna Malay Niketan, 31, Union Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 (for short “Flat 3B” ). According to the original Plaintiff, Flat 3B is bequeathed to the daughters of the deceased from his first wife. Hence, the

Page 2 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

Appellant (original Defendant No.1) was appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver.

2. As far as the Order impugned in Appeal (L) No.6140 of 2024 is concerned (i.e. dated 10^th October 2023), the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, on instructions, stated that the Appellant does not have any objection to the appointment of the Receiver of the assets belonging to the deceased [including Flat 3B ]. He, therefore, sought leave to withdraw the above Appeal.

3. As far as Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024 is concerned, the said Appeal challenges the Order dated 10^th November 2023 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. By this Order, original Defendant No.1 (the Appellant) was appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver in terms of the Order dated 10^th October 2023, subject to the usual terms and conditions with respect to royalty and security, to be determined by the Receiver. Pursuant to this Order, the Receiver has fixed the Royalty @ Rs.69,000/- per month and also directed the Appellant (original Defendant No.1) to furnish a security deposit of Rs.2,07,000/- (i.e. 3 months Royalty). Though the Appellant does not have a grievance to the appointment of the Receiver, the grievance of the Appellant is with reference to the royalty and security fixed

Page 3 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

by the Receiver. According to the Appellant, no royalty or security ought to be fixed because the Appellant was admittedly the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and therefore, would be entitled to continue to use and occupy Flat 3B. One of the reasons, amongst other things, is that Flat 3B was her “matrimonial home” / “shared household”. This is the narrow controversy in Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024. In this Appeal, there is also an application for condonation of delay being Interim Application No.823 of 2024. The delay is of 72 days. We formally condone this delay and dispose of Interim Application No.823 of 2024.

4. As far as Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024 is concerned (challenging the Order dated 10^th November 2023), we put it to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant that it would be more prudent if an Application is first made to the learned single Judge challenging the quantum of royalty and security fixed by the Court Receiver, and to re-determine the quantum, if any, that would be payable by the Appellant for occupying Flat 3B , as the agent of the Court Receiver.

5. When we put this to the learned counsel, he fairly stated that the above Appeal can be disposed of by permitting the Appellant to file an appropriate Application before the learned single Judge challenging the

Page 4 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

quantum of royalty and security determined by the Court Receiver. He submitted that he would file this Application within a period of five weeks from today and he would canvass all his contentions before the learned single Judge.

6. In answer to this, Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 [the original Plaintiff], as well as Ms. Gulnar Mistry, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.8 and 9 (the daughters of the Deceased – original Defendant Nos.8 & 9), submitted that the Order of the Court Receiver determining the royalty as well as payment of security has not been complied with till date. The arrears or royalty and security are approximately Rs.12.00 lacs. In these circumstances, both the counsel submitted that the Appellant ought to be directed to pay some ad-hoc amount towards royalty and security, before the learned single Judge is asked to entertain the Application proposed to be filed by the Appellant [challenging the quantum of royalty and security fixed by the Receiver]. They further submitted that the Appellant also ought to be directed to pay all society outgoings and property taxes of Flat 3B, which, till date have not been cleared, and continue to do so until the Appellant is occupying Flat 3B as an agent of the Court Receiver.

Page 5 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, on taking instructions, stated that all society outgoings and property taxes in relation to Flat 3B shall be cleared by the Appellant within a period of 4 weeks from today. He further stated that all future society outgoings and property taxes shall be paid on time till the Appellant occupies Flat 3B as an agent of the Court Receiver. We accept these statements as undertakings given to the Court.

8. As far as the amount of ad-hoc royalty and security is concerned, the learned Advocate for the Appellant, on taking instructions, fairly stated that whatever figure this Court decides as ad-hoc royalty and security, the Appellant would deposit with the Court Receiver within a period of four weeks from today. He was however quick to clarify that this should not be construed to mean that the Appellant is precluded from arguing before the learned single Judge that no royalty or security ought to be fixed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. Having heard all parties on all these aspects, we dispose of both the above Appeals by passing the following order:

Page 6 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

(a) Appeal (L) No.6140 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In light of withdrawal of Appeal (L) No.6140 of 2024, nothing survives in the Interim Application No.822 of 2024 and same is disposed of accordingly.

(b) As far as Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024 is concerned, we direct that the Appellant shall, as an ad-hoc arrangement, pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards royalty and security for occupying Flat 3B as the agent of the Court Receiver. This payment shall be made to the Receiver within a period of four weeks from today.

(c) In addition to the aforesaid amount, the Appellant shall also clear all the society outgoings as well as property taxes etc. in relation to Flat 3B within a period of four weeks from today. Further, as per the statement made on behalf of the Appellant, all future society outgoings and property taxes etc shall also be paid on time till the Appellant occupies Flat 3B as an agent of the Court Receiver.

Page 7 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

(d) Once the payments referred to in (b) and (c) above are made, the Appellant shall make an Application to the learned single Judge for varying the quantum of royalty and security deposit determined by the Receiver. Such an Application shall be filed within one week of making payment of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Receiver [towards adhoc royalty and security], as well as clearing the society outgoings and property taxes etc. [till date], in relation to Flat 3B .

(e) The proof of payment of the society outgoings as well as payment of ad-hoc royalty to the Receiver shall be furnished to the learned single Judge along with the Application proposed to be filed by the Appellant seeking a variation of the amount of royalty and security determined by the Receiver. If these amounts are not paid, the learned single Judge shall dismiss the Application filed by the Appellant, the consequence of which will be that the Order of Receiver fixing the

Page 8 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

royalty @ Rs.69,000/- per month and security deposit of Rs.2,07,000/- shall stand.

(f) Appeal (L) No.6150 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of

in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

10. It is needless to clarify that the figure of Rs.4,00,000/- fixed by us is only an ad-hoc arrangement, and the learned single Judge shall decide the Application of the Appellant on its own merits uninfluenced by the figure fixed by us today. In other words, when the learned single Judge finally decides the Application, he is free to increase this amount, or reduce this amount, or even come to the conclusion that no amount is payable. If the learned single judge decides any quantum of royalty and/or security, he is also free to decide whether future society outgoings and taxes etc ought to be paid by the Appellant or whether the same should be paid from the royalty fixed. However, till the Application is decided by the learned single judge, the Appellant shall continue to pay all the society outgoings and taxes etc., as per the statement recorded above.

11. We are informed that the Suit itself has been wrongly transferred to the Hon’ble City Civil Court at Bombay. The contesting parties have stated

Mohite

Page 9 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

17-18 ia822-23with823-24.doc

before us that they will jointly apply for having the Suit transferred back to this Court. We have noted the said statement of the contesting parties, namely, the original Plaintiff, original Defendant No.1 and Original Defendant Nos.8 and 9 that they will jointly apply to have the above Suit transferred back to this Court.

12. 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.

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Page 10 of 10 MARCH 6, 2025

Mohite