Disposed¶5

Sampath Vittala Shetty v. I Vittala Shetty (Deceased)

Bombay HC2 Jul 2025TP/3191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Testamentary side) short order on mentioning/circulation practice: praecipe seeking urgent circulation of Testamentary Petition No. 3191 of 2024, for issue of citation to the Executor, held not urgent and not in the format prescribed in the court's notice of 3rd January 2025; matter directed to be listed in regular course subject to Rs. 5,000 costs payable to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund. Judge: Arif S. Doctor. Order dated 21st February 2025.

What did the court decide?

No urgent circulation granted; matter to be listed in regular course subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund. ¶5

Sampath Vittala Shetty vs I Vittala Shetty (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2025.02.26 10:03:28 +0530

¶2

Production-3-tp-3191-24.doc

¶3

1 / 2

¶4

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

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 3191 OF 2024

¶6

Sampath Vittala Shetty ..Petitioner Inna Vittala Shetty ..Deceased.

¶7

¶8

Mr. Jagdish Hegde for Petitioner.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATED : 21st FEBRUARY 2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

¶13

2 At the outset, before the board was called, the Associate of this court had informed all the Advocates waiting in the court seeking circulation that only those matters which were extremely urgent were to be mentioned in terms of the notices published by this court. The advocates were also informed that in the event any matter was mentioned and it was found that the same was not urgent and contrary to the notices published, then not only would circulation not be granted but also costs be imposed and the matter would be listed after 6 months. 3 Despite the above Mr, Hegde Learned Counsel for Petitioner mentioned the matter and tendered a preacipe, in which the reasons for seeking urgent circulation were set out as follows :

¶14

Meera Jadhav

¶15

Production-3-tp-3191-24.doc

¶16

2 / 2

¶17

In the above referred matter circulation was granted to 15/01/2025. However, the matter did not reach due to paucity of time, hence adjourned to 20/02/2025. Matter did not appear or listed on board of 20/02/2025.

¶18

As per office order Citation to Executor is to be issued by this Hon'ble Court.

¶19

Be pleased to produce the record and proceeding in the above referred matter before The Hon'ble Shri Justice Arif S. Doctor on day of February, 2025 for issue Citation to the Executor in the matter.”

¶20

4 It is to be noted that the above reasons are firstly not urgent and secondly

¶21

the preacipe is not in the format published by this court on 3rd January 2025.

¶22

5 Hence list the matter in regular course subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund, account details of which are as follows:

¶23

Bank Account Details :

¶24

Account name	:	The High Court Employees Medical
		Welfare Fund at Mumbai.
Bank Name
and Branch	:	Bank of India, Mumbai (Main) Branch.
Account no.	:	000120110001337.
IFSC Code	:	BKID0000001”

¶25

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶26

Meera Jadhav

Sampath Vittala Shetty v. I Vittala Shetty (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampath Vittala Shetty v. I Vittala Shetty (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

Idbi Bank vs B. R. Films

Jaymala Gopalkrishna Gavande vs Vikas Gopalkrishna Gavande (Deceased No 1)

Anil Subhash Sawant vs Samadhan Mahadeo Autade

Anil Subhash Sawant vs Samadhan Mahadeo Autade

Meenal Raut vs Sheela Datta Raote (Deceased)

Sanat Rasiklal Jariwala vs Rasiklal Jamnadas Jariwala