Bombay High Court
Girish Nautmal Jani And Anr vs Nusserwanji Dorabji ... on 17 October, 2018
Author: G. S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
37-CSTL215-17.DOC
Atul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 215 OF 2017
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 127 OF 1994
Girish Nautmal Jani & Anr ...Petitioners
And
Nusserwanji Dorabji Seervai ...Deceased
Mr Nitin Vhatkar, i/b GS Hiranandani, for Petitioner No. 1.
Ms Deepti Panda, i/b Pushpa D Thapa, for Petitioner No. 2.
Ms Adeline Rodrigues, former Prothonotary & Senior Master,
Administrator appointed by the Court, present.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 17th October 2018
PC:-
1. Heard.
2. This Chamber Summons is by the first of the two Petitioners
and it is directed at his fellow Petitioner seeking that she be
transposed as a Respondent. The Petition is for Letters of
Administration with Will annexed. It was originally, before its amendment, for probate.
3. This fight between the two Petitioners has its own history. It goes back six years and yet there is no resolution in sight; the estate remains without administration. The Petition itself is of 1994.
Page 1 of 417th October 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:32:18 ::: 37-CSTL215-17.DOC
4. On 15th March 2012, Mrs RP Sondur Baldota J noted that the Counsel for the 2nd Petitioner sought time to apply for transposition while the 1st Petitioner's Advocate sought a discharge. She noted in that order that the two Petitioners cannot be represented by different lawyers, and therefore one of the two Petitioners would have to be transposed. It is now argued that since the 2nd Petitioner did nothing thereafter, therefore the 1st Petitioner should be allowed to continue and the 2nd Petitioner should be transposed as a Respondent.
5. On 22nd March 2012, Ms SondurBaldota J noted that both Petitioners had filed applications, each seeking that the other be transposed. The matter was adjourned for service and so on. The duel continued and remained in that state for another two years when, on 20th January 2014, RD Dhanuka J appointed Ms Adeline Rodrigues, former Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court as an Administrator of the entire estate. She is present in Court today and she states that she is willing to continue to serve in that capacity.
6. On 15th April 2014, Petitioner No. 2 did not press a separate Notice of Motion but that had nothing to do with the application for transposition. There was then a Chamber Order (L) No. 307 of 2012 listed before RD Dhanuka J on 15th April 2014 and that was disposed on that day.
7. The result is that Ms Rodrigues is now an Administrator but the conduct of the proceedings seems to continue in the hands of these two warring Petitioners. Neither of them wants the other as Page 2 of 4 17th October 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:32:18 ::: 37-CSTL215-17.DOC the Petitioner. As it happens, I want neither of them as a Petitioner. If they have not the civility to coordinate the conduct of the Petition, and if they both insist on acting wholly contrary to our Rules (and even to logic), both must take the consequences. Between the two, there is nothing to choose. Both are equally unreasonable, and seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend reason, and the simple fact that absolutely nothing will be lost by transposing one. Courts are not meant to pander to the inflated egos of litigants, and this is nothing but a case of just that.
8. The Petition itself has been departmentally rejected. It is restored to file.
9. Both petitioners will be transposed as Respondents. That is all that can be done; otherwise the estate will remain in lockdown at least until one of the two Petitioners shuffles off this mortal coil.
10. Proof of the Will and the further conduct of the matter will be in the hands of Ms Rodrigues, the Administrator. Should she need the assistance of an Advocate or Counsel, she is at liberty to apply and that application need not take the form of a formal application but can be simply in the form of a report to the Court. There should be absolutely no difficulty in proceeding in this manner. At least we will be moving forward rather than going around in circles with no end in sight.
11. There are indeed sharp differences between the Petitioners:
and one accuses the other of having acted contrary to the interest of Page 3 of 4 17th October 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:32:18 ::: 37-CSTL215-17.DOC the estate. All those contentions are necessarily left open and kept at large.
12. The necessary amendments will be carried out by the Registry without allowing the intervention of any of the Petitioners. They will be joined to this Petition now as Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
13. There is no need to renumber the Petition as a Suit only on account of this transposition, for the simple reason that neither of the Petitioners is contesting the Will. Rather, both are supporting it. They are only inimical towards each other, not the Testator or the Will. Consequently, the Petition will remain as a petition and will proceed uncontested, subject to caveats by any person having a bona fide caveatable interest and proof of service of citations, if necessary, on the heirs of the deceased testator.
14. I believe there are several securities and shares which are due for urgent dematerialization. Ms Rodrigues agrees to place a report with all necessary particulars for further orders.
15. List the matter on 26th October 2018.
16. The Chamber Summons is disposed of in these terms. There will be no order as to costs.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 4 of 4 17th October 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2018 00:32:18 :::