Bombay High Court
Mr.Haresh Karnani vs Mr.Prakash Shyam Masand on 2 November, 2018
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
903-TS9-11.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 9 OF 2011
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 947 OF 2010
Haresh Karnani ...Plaintif
Versus
Prakash S Masand ...Defendant
Ms Shivani Khanna, Mr Sahil Bijliwala, I/b Mr Sahil Bijliwala, ib/
FZB & Associates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr Haresh Ganatra, with Ms Devanshi Sanghvi, I/b Haresh
Ganatra, for the Defendant.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 2nd November 2018
PC:-
1.The matter was fully argued at the final hearing stage. Given that it was a dispute by siblings and their mother in regard to the estate of deceased father, I suggested a settlement. Negotiations between the parties then continued for several months. The parties sought assistance of the Court on more than one occasion. It appears that terms are finally arrived at and these are proposed in the form of not only Consent Terms in the Testamentary Suits but also as a family settlement and other documents. There are, I am given to understand, some details to be filled in although parties Page 1 of 3 2nd November 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:17:39 ::: 903-TS9-11.DOC have confirmed to their Advocates that they are agreeable to the Consent Terms. This is, therefore, more than an in-principle approval. It is complete in every material aspect. All that remains is the finalisation of certain dates, amounts etc. Parties request that to ensure that the settlement goes through, the present set of documents, though as yet unsigned and pending completion of these formalities be taken on record. This is so ordered and the compilation of documents given to me is taken on record and marked as "X1" for identification with today's date. This is on the basis that there is to be no material change to the terms that have now been agreed between two sides. Several of the parties are overseas and for this reason too, the final execution of the documents may take some time. The parties request that the matter be placed for final orders on 5th December 2018.
2. As regards the bank accounts, the list and statements are provided by Ms Khanna for the Plaintifs to Mr Ganatra for the contesting Defendants. There is one account in Pune with the Bank of Maharashtra. It has a negligible balance. Mr Ganantra accepts the statement in this regard. Ms Khanna points out that given the fact that the parties are overseas, the proposal is that this document will be signed in six counter parts and these will then be exchange, and the final order on 5th December 2018 will undoubtedly record this.
3. There is one pending issue in regard to the named executor Arjan Advani who was represented by his Constituted Attorney Mr Haresh Karnani in the Petition. Having regard to the settlement proposed, it seems to me clear that Mr Arjan Advani, as the named executor, is not required to seek probate issued to him but will also Page 2 of 3 2nd November 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:17:39 ::: 903-TS9-11.DOC be bound not to make any such application in future. This is specifically required in the context of the Consent Terms that are now agreed between the parties. A formal order to this efect will follow. No further steps are to be taken by Mr Advani.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 3 of 3 2nd November 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:17:39 :::