Bombay High Court
Mr. Nanak S. Ghatalia vs Swati Shatischandra Ghatalia ... on 12 March, 2021
Bench: G.S. Patel
11-IAL-4100-2020+.DOC
Ashwini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 4100 OF 2020
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 70 OF 2015
Swati S Ghatalia ...Petitioner
Versus
Nanak S Ghatalia & Ors ...Responents
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 70 OF 2015
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 815 OF 2009
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 4100 OF 2020
IN
Atul G. MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 70 OF 2015
Kulkarni
Digitally signed
WITH
by Atul G.
Kulkarni
Date: 2021.03.15
11:08:28 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7385 OF 2020
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 70 OF 2015
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.7992 OF 2020
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 70 OF 2015
Page 1 of 7
12th March 2021
11-IAL-4100-2020+.DOC
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7385 OF 2020
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 70 OF 2015
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 132 OF 2016
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 119 OF 2015
WITH
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 457 OF 2014
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 119 OF 2015
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 457 OF 2014
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 72 OF 2014
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 457 OF 2014
WITH
IN PERSON APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2019
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 457 OF 2014
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 119 OF 2015
IN
Page 2 of 7
12th March 2021
11-IAL-4100-2020+.DOC
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 457 OF 2014
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 132 OF 2016
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 119 OF 2015
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 26 OF 2017
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 815 OF 2009
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 52 OF 2017
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 26 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 52 OF 2017
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 26 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 7 OF 2019
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 78 OF 2016
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 247 OF 2018
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 78 OF 2016
Page 3 of 7
12th March 2021
11-IAL-4100-2020+.DOC
Mr Shanay Shah, i/b Sapna Rachure, for Applicant in
IAL/4100/2020.
Mr G Mogre, i/b Muralidharan VC, for Respondents Nos. 1(a) to 1(c).
Mr J Master, with Mr Ravindra Chile, i/b Harshal Ghagare, for
Defendant No.2 and Applicant in IA/7992/2020.
Mr VS Panandikar, Assistant, Court Receiver's ofce present.
Mr Nanak Ghatalia, for the Plaintif in person in MPT/70/2015,
through video conferencing.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 12th March 2021
PC:-
1. I have hard copies of Afdavits fled by Swati Ghatalia and
Deven Ghatalia. Mr Nanak Ghatalia appears online. He has sent in
his Afdavit both in hard copy and soft copy. I have that as well.
2. Swati Ghatalia's Afdavit sets out the terms on which she
proposes a settlement. Deven Ghatalia, represented by Mr Master
who is online, in his Afdavit also sets out his requirements and
suggestions.
3. Mr Nanak Ghatalia's Afdavit seems to me to principally
proceed on the footing that no settlement is possible or, at any rate,
that he is not agreeable to any compromise of any sort. His Afdavit
states just the Will must to be administered and there should be no
deviation whatsoever. In short, Mr Nanak Ghatalia submits, as
indeed is his right to do, that he wishes to pursue the litigation.
12th March 2021
11-IAL-4100-2020+.DOC
4. The parties' position is now clear. Indeed, this is the very
reason I asked for these Afdavits in the frst place. I apprehended
that there would be some ambiguity or misunderstanding as we went
along. I saw no point in wasting everybody's time by proceeding on
a misunderstanding that a settlement was possible or agreeable.
5. The position is now plain. The entire set of matters ― and
there are many of them ― will have to proceed on merits. There are
all manner of Interim Applications.
6. Mr Master for Devan Ghatalia has a pending application for
disclosure. It is directed against Mr Nanak Ghatalia. Mr Shah for
Swati Ghatalia has a similar application. There is, as I recollect, also
a pending application by Deven Ghatalia for removal of the
executors, and there are several applications by Mr Nanak Ghatalia
as well.
7. Mr Shah points out that the sequencing of the hearing was
decided some time in 2017. Whether that sequencing needs to be
changed or can be followed will be decided on the next date.
8. Certainly, there are some questions of law that do arise. For
instance, and only by way of a non-binding illustration, there is a
question regarding the transmission of certain shares or securities.
Mr Ghatalia maintains that in this particular case the settled law is
that his transferred shares from the estate to his sole name being the
nominee is legally sustainable. Mr Shah and Mr Master disagree and
say the settled law, under a pronouncement of the division bench
12th March 2021
11-IAL-4100-2020+.DOC
arising from this and a connected case, is exactly the reverse. Mr
Shah points out that the principle of law that I set out has been
upheld by the Appeal Court. However, the error was in deciding
that question of law in a proceeding in the Ghatalia dispute along
with another matter, Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar vs Jayasharee
Jayant Salgaonkar.1 At least as regards my order in the Ghatalia
case, it was found to be without jurisdiction. Prima facie this would
not mean that the principle of law regarding succession has been set
aside when the division bench order and judgment says precisely the
reverse. However, since Mr Ghatalia wishes to argue the point, I will
leave that contention open for the next date when I can take up all
these matters.
9. I will have to schedule the hearing. Understanding the length
of time that these matters have been pending I will endeavour to
take these on the earliest possible date.
10. At this stage no further Afdavits are to be fled without leave
of the Court. The present three Afdavits that have been fled by the
three parties will be exchanged so that each has a complete set.
11. List the entire group of matters in the afternoon session on
28th April 2021. I regret that I am unable to give any earlier dates
because of the large pendency of other matters, previously
scheduled matters and the large number of matters already assigned
to this Court.
1 Notice of Motion No. 822 of 2014 in Suit No. 503 of 2014, dated 31st
March 2015.
12th March 2021
11-IAL-4100-2020+.DOC
12. It is clarifed that the stay I have requested the parties to
observe in the City Court proceedings cannot continue in view of
this state of afairs. As far as City Court proceedings are concerned,
all contentions are specifcally left open for being taken in that
Court and in those proceedings.
13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of
this Court. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed
copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J)
12th March 2021
