[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bharat Amratlal Bhagat vs Ranjana Rameshchandra Jethwa on 28 November, 2025
904 @ 11-ia-4091-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.9688 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.9687 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4091 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3997 OF 2025
IN
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.29 OF 2013
VISHAL
SUBHASH IN
PAREKAR
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1311 OF 2012
PAREKAR
Date: 2025.11.28
19:26:21 +0530
Bharat Amratlal Bhagat ...Applicant/Ori.
Plaintiff
Versus
Ranjana Rameshchandra Jethwa ...Caveatrix/
Defendant
------------
Mr. Rohan Kelkar a/w. Mr. Chirag Bhatia, Ms. Rashi Shah i/b. M/s.
Kartikeya and Associates, for the Plaintiff
Mr. Anand Kumar i/b. Mrs. Daulat Jehangir, for the Defendant.
------------
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2025
P. C. :
IAL No. 9688 of 2024 :-
1. The Interim Application has been preferred seeking the
following reliefs.
Vishal Parekar 1 of 7
904 @ 11-ia-4091-2025.doc
a) This Court to allow the Applicant herein to carry out
the amendment to the Schedule-I of the Petition by
incorporating the current monies of Mr. A.C. Bhagat's
estate corpus (as standing today) and more particularly
described and annexed hereto as "Exhibit-I".
(b) This Court to pass an order under section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to transfer the monies of
Mr. A.C. Bhagat's estate corpus administered by the
Administrator appointed by the Superior Court of New
Jersey Chancery Division- Probate Part Essex County to
this Court.
(c) This Court to pass an order under Order XL of the
Code for appointing a Court Receiver to administer the
transferred monies of Mr. A.C. Bhagat's estate corpus
administered by the Administrator appointed by the
Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division- Probate
Part Essex County.
2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant does
not press for prayer clause (b) and (c) and seeks liberty to file a fresh
application if so deemed fit for the purpose of seeking relief in terms
of prayer clause (c).
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Testamentary
Petition has been filed for Probate of last Will and testament of late
Amratlal Chandulal Bhagat who expired in India on 11 th January, 2012.
The Applicant is the son of the deceased and executor under the Will
dated 24th November, 1997. He submits that the Caveator has objected
to the filing of the Testamentary Petition and the proceedings have
Vishal Parekar 2 of 7
904 @ 11-ia-4091-2025.doc
been converted into Suit. He submits that by the present application
the Applicant only seeks to carry out amendment in the Schedule I of
the Petition by incorporating the current monies of A. C. Bhagat's
estate corpus (as standing today) and which is described in Exhibit I. He
submits that there were certain proceedings in the United State of
America regarding the estate of the deceased which culminated in a
final judgment on 4th June, 2019 holding that no further application in
respect of the estate may lay before the Court of United States.
Pending inter partes litigation before Bombay High Court. He submits
that an Administrator for the estate corpus consisting of monies which
is the subject matter of the Interim Application was appointed with
the U.S. Courts retaining ancillary jurisdiction over the same. He
submits that by order dated 28th September, 2021, the U. S. Court
granted an application by the U.S. Administrator to invest the estate
corpus in his hands during the pendency of the proceeding in the
Bombay High Court and presently the estate corpus comprises of sum
of USD 932000. He submits that this Court by order of 6 th June, 2016
had allowed the proposed amendment in similar nature to include an
account at Habib Bank, Zurich in the Schedule of Assets of the
deceased. He seeks a similar relief in the present case.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that
this Court would have no jurisdiction over the estate corpus which is
Vishal Parekar 3 of 7
904 @ 11-ia-4091-2025.doc
under the charge and custody of the Administrator appointed by the
U.S. Courts. He has taken this Court in detail to the various orders
which are passed by the U.S. Court and would submit that the relief
cannot be granted as the U.S. Court has retained ancillary jurisdiction.
He would further submit that subsequently the US Court had also
permitted to substitution of the earlier Administrator and had vested
the subsequent Administrator with certain powers as far as the estate
of the deceased Amratlal Bhagat is concerned. He submits that the
order of 6th June, 2016, does not assist the case of the Applicant as by
that order what was granted is an amendment to include an account at
Habib Bank, Zurich in the Schedule of Assets and in present case the
relief sought is in respect of monies which are under the control and
custody of the Administrator.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. Interim Application has been pressed only in terms of prayer
clause (a) seeking to carry out the amendment to the Schedule-I of the
Petition by incorporating the current monies of the deceased A.C.
Bhagat's estate corpus which is USD 932000. The orders of the U.S.
Court which are annexed to the Petition would clearly demonstrate
that the Administrator's motion was granted and the Administrator
was directed to prudently invest the Estate's assets until such time as
the parties' contest in the Bombay High Court concludes and
Vishal Parekar 4 of 7
904 @ 11-ia-4091-2025.doc
distribution of the Estate's assets pursuant to the Court's instructions
is warranted. Similarly, the application at page 45 filed by the
Administrator which was granted by U.S. Court would indicate that the
U.S. Court was conscious of the fact that because the Will's contest in
India remains unresolved, these funds cannot be distributed because
no competent Court has yet determined whether the estate assets
should be distributed pursuant to 2003 Will or 1997 Will. Perusal of the
various orders would indicate that the U.S. Court had retained the
ancillary jurisdiction over the estate corpus till such time as this Court
decides the issue pending in this Court as regards the Probate of the
Will of the deceased. It is only after this Court in the Testamentary Suit
concludes the issue of grant of Probate that the same will govern the
distribution of the deceased's estate.
7. The submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the
Respondent is based upon a misconception that what is sought by the
present application is transfer of monies which is under the charge and
custody of the Administrator appointed by the U.S. Courts. At this
stage all that is sought by the Applicant is an amendment in the
Probate Petition to include monies which are part of the estate of the
deceased and in the custody and charge of the Administrator
appointed by the U.S. Court. Without this estate forming part of the
Testamentary Petition, there can be no adjudication by this Court and
Vishal Parekar 5 of 7
904 @ 11-ia-4091-2025.doc
subsequently the U.S. Court will not be in position to decide the issue
of distribution of the estate.
8. The order of 6th June, 2016 which was passed by this Court
permitting an amendment to include an account at Habib Bank, Zurich
in the Schedule of Assets of the deceased can similarly be passed in the
present matter. Considering all that is sought is an amendment to the
Schedule I of the Petition without any direction being sought as
regards the monies which are under the charge and control of the
Administrator, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
9. As recorded by the order of 6th June, 2016, similarly in present
case, it is clarified that grant of Interim Application is not to be
construed as in any way being adverse to or derogating from the order
of the U.S. Superior Court or its appointment of the Administrator
Pendente lite. The amendment is allowed only for the sake of
completeness of the listing of the estate.
10. Interim Application is allowed.
11. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks.
IAL No. 9687 of 2024 :-
12. Interim Application is disposed of as withdrawn.
Vishal Parekar 6 of 7
904 @ 11-ia-4091-2025.doc
T.S. No. 29 of 2013 :-
13. List on 11th December, 2025 for the purpose of recording further
evidence of P.W-2.
14. Statement of admission and denial of documents to be filed
before the next date.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Vishal Parekar 7 of 7
