[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gogi Kaur Keer Alias Daljit Tarvinder ... vs Inderjeet Singh Amardeep Chadha on 13 January, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:778
IA 6707.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6707 OF 2025
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 509 OF 2024
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1610 OF 2018
Gogi Kaur Keer @ Daljeet Tarvinder Keer ...Applicant
In the matter between
Davinder Amardeep Singh Chadha ...Deceased
Gogi Kaur Keer @ Daljeet Tarvinder Keer ...Petitioner
vs.
Inderjeet Singh Amardeep Chaddha @ Supremo Chadha ...Respondent
Ms. Nidhi Loya i/b Jhangiani Narula and Associates, for the Applicant.
Mr. Ayush Kedia a/w Mr. Omkar Mayekar, Ms. Disha Chaurasia, for the
Respondent.
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for the State.
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
RESERVED ON : 19th DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th JANUARY, 2026
--------------
ORDER:
1. This is an application under Section 247 of Indian Succession
Act, 1925 (for short "Succession Act") seeking inter alia appointment
of the Applicant as administrator pendente lite in respect of estate
of late Amardeep Singh Chaddha. The Application has been filed by
the Applicant in her capacity as legal heir of the deceased late
Amardeep Singh Sujan Singh Chaddha and of Amardeep's wife Late
Mrs. Davinder Kaur.
IA 6707.doc
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that there are two
Wills propounded of the deceased Amardeep Singh, one by
Davinder Kaur during her lifetime and the second Will by the
Respondent herein. Davinder Kaur filed Testamentary Petition No.
1610 of 2018 seeking letters of administration with Will annexed
dated 29.01.2014 of the deceased Amardeep. Testamentary Petition
No. 2458 of 2017 is filed by the Respondent seeking Probate of Will
dated 12.04.2017 of the deceased Amardeep. Upon Caveats being
filed in the respective testamentary petitions, the petitions are
converted into suit. In so far as the Testamentary Petition No 1610
of 2018 filed by Davinder Kaur is concerned, the Respondent's
Caveat is dismissed and it is stated that the Respondent is in the
process of applying for restoration.
3. The estate of deceased Amardeep consists of several
properties, one of which is Amardeep Lodging, Boarding and
Restaurant and Bar (for short "Hotel Amardeep"). During her
lifetime Davinder Kaur filed Miscellaneous Application (L) No. 2 of
2018 in Testamentary Petition No. 1610 of 2018 seeking her
appointment as administrator pendente lite. This Court vide
detailed order dated 15.02.2019 appointed Davinder Kaur as
administrator and the Respondent was directed interalia to hand
IA 6707.doc
over the possession of all assets in his custody including the
property on which Amardeep Hotel was being run by the
Respondent within four weeks of the date of order and Davinder
Kaur was permitted to conduct the said hotel business with
consequential directions.
4. The Respondent filed Appeal (L) No 114 of 2019 challenging
the order dated 15.02.2019 which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 25th April, 2019. The challenge was carried to the Hon'ble
Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition. By order dated 10 th May,
2019 the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Respondent herein to file
the income tax returns of the Hotel for last three years and
documentary evidence to show that he was running the hotel for
last 20 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered status quo regarding
the management of the hotel subject to payment of Rs 7,00,000/
per month by Respondent herein to Davinder Kaur without
prejudice to his rights. During the pendency of Special Leave
Petition, Davinder Kaur expired on 19.06.2019. The Hon'ble Apex
Court recorded the submission of death of Davinder Kaur and
dismissed the Petition by order dated 8 th July, 2019, which was
recalled by order dated 9th August, 2019 and the Special Leave
Petition was dismissed as infructuous. .
IA 6707.doc
5. The present Application under Section 247 of Succession Act is
filed by the daughter of deceased Davinder Kaur and Amardeep
Singh, who is also propounding the Will of Davinder Kaur dated 5 th
April, 2019 as sole executor and beneficiary by filing Testamentary
Petition No 2545 of 2022. Citation has been served upon the
Respondent. The Application after setting out the history of the
previous litigation pleads that there is non compliance of the order
dated 15th February, 2019 and the order of Hon'ble Apex Court as
regards the payment of sum of Rs 7,00,000/ per month to Davinder
Kaur. It is contended that the Respondent is siphoning of the income
generated from the hotel business, which is majorly in cash, for his
personal expenses/requirements. It is pleaded that post order of
15th February, 2019, the Respondent is running a restaurant form
the property on which Hotel Amardeep is located in partnership
with Mridul Singhvi and is attempting to obtain new shops and
establishment licenses. The Respondent's daughter has applied for
issuance of liquor license in name of M/s 99 Hospitality and the
address provided is of Hotel Amardeep. There is civil proceedings
initiated by the deceased Amardeep and Davinder Kaur against the
Respondent for injunction and for challenging the Gift Deeds in
respect of certain flats of deceased Amardeep which are pending.
IA 6707.doc
6. The Respondent has filed reply Affidavit contending that the
deceased Amardeep during his lifetime had gifted Hotel Chena
Garden situated at Thane to the Applicant and the Applicant has
already received her share from the estate of the deceased. The
Applicant is unable to manage Hotel Chena Garden on her own and
has given the hotel on rental basis to third party and cannot seek
relief of being appointed as administrator of Hotel Amardeep. It is
stated that there are three Wills of the deceased parents of the
Applicant and Respondent No. 1 which are pending adjudication. It
is stated that the Respondent has already complied with the Hon'ble
Supreme Court's order dated 10.05.2019 by giving the deceased
Davinder Kaur Demand Draft of Rs. 7,00,000/-. It is contended that
the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as
infructuous. As per the Will dated 12 th April, 2017 of deceased
Amardeep, after the demise of Davinder Kaur all the properties is to
be transferred in name of Respondent. The Respondent utilised the
ground portion of Hotel Amardeep and only kitchen business with
liquor was started on conducting business which was closed down
and now the Respondent is in exclusive possession of the said
portion and is in the process of obtaining liquor license to start
business on his own.
IA 6707.doc
7. An additional Affidavit has been filed by the Applicant
contending that the Respondent constructed an unauthorised shed
in open space of Hotel Amardeep for which notice under Section
351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was issued for demolition
and Suit No 1134 of 2013 was filed in name of Amardeep
challenging the notice. The Respondent had fraudulently opened a
bank account in name of deceased Amardeep. The Respondent's
daughter has applied for excise license in which Excise Department's
report records about rent agreement in name of the Respondent's
daughter. The health license has been transferred in the name of
the Respondent's daughter. One Mridul D. Singhvi had entered into
a partnership business to run the restaurant from the unauthorised
structure constructed by the Respondent in the name of M/s 99
Hospitality in respect of which Mridul Singhvi has filed civil
proceedings seeking protection of possession and injunction. The
Applicant's paternal Uncle Narinder Singh had filed suit in the year
1984 for partition in which a preliminary decree of partition was
passed on 27.08.2009 and the deceased got possession of the first
floor of 12-A, Evergreen Building known as Amardeep Hotel, garage
and part of the open space at the east side of the property
touching railway boundary.
IA 6707.doc
8. Interim Application No. 6707 of 2025 has been preferred by
the Applicant for a direction to the Respondent to forthwith pay the
outstanding municipal property taxes of Rs. 86,83,158/- in respect
of Hotel Amardeep and for appointment of Court Receiver. It is
stated that the Respondent has been unlawfully dealing with the
estate property by entering into conducting agreement dated 4 th
October, 2021 in favour of third party i.e. Rohra Hospitality LLP and
by reason of dispute the conductor has lodged FIR against the
Respondent. It is stated that there are arrears of the property taxes
of Rs 86,83,158/.
SUBMISSIONS :-
9. Mr. Narula, Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken this
Court through the findings in the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by
this Court in Miscellaneous Application (L) No. 2 of 2018 to contend
that this Court had arrived at a finding of necessity of appointing
Davinder Kaur as administrator. He submits that though the order
directs the Respondent to hand over possession of all assets to
Davinder Kaur, there is non compliance of the order. He submits
that by order of 10.05.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court , the
Respondent was directed to file income tax returns by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and documents to show that the Respondent has been
IA 6707.doc
running the hotel for the last 20 years, which has not been filed. He
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court granted status quo regarding
the management of the hotel subject to the Respondent paying Rs.
7,00,000/- per month to Davinder Kaur, which was not paid. He
submits that in view of the order dated 15.02.2019, the Applicant
being the legal heir of Davinder Kaur is entitled to conduct the
business of Hotel Amardeep. He has taken this Court through the
Will of deceased Amardeep dated 29 th January, 2014 to point out
that the deceased has stated about the interference of Respondent
in the business of Hotel Amardeep and had bequeathed all assets
to Davinder Kumar. He submits that the Respondent has
fraudulently opened a bank account in the name of the deceased by
forging his signature, has faked a divorce with his first wife and has
been siphoning of Rs. 7,00,000/- per month showing purported
payment of alimony to his wife. He would submit that taking
advantage of the deceased being bed ridden at the relevant time,
the Respondent constructed an unauthorised structure in the
compulsory open space which resulted in penalty being imposed in
the property tax of about Rs. 2,70,000/- per year and in addition
there is arrears of municipal taxes. He would submit that the health
license of a restaurant business has been surreptitiously transferred
in the name of Respondent's daughter who has also applied for a
IA 6707.doc
liquor license in her name. He would further point out that the
report of the Excise Inspector records that the daughter of the
Respondent has obtained the premises mentioned in the application
on rental basis from the Respondent herein. He submits that the
Respondent has surreptitiously entered into partnership dated
17.11.2015 with one Mridul Singhvi under which 50% share of profit
is to be given to the said partner. He submits that the partnership
has landed into dispute in respect of which civil suit is pending. He
submits that conducting agreement has been signed in the year
2021 by M/s 99 Hospitality with one Rohra Hospitality LLP in
respect of Hotel Amardeep. An FIR has been registered against the
Respondent at the instance of the said conductor in which the
Respondent has obtained bail. He would further point out the
Respondent's Affidavit filed with the Corporation stating that he is
not in a position to continue with the business. In support he relies
upon the decision in the case of Manek Dara Sukhadwalla vs
Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer and Ors.1
10. Mr. Kedia, learned Counsel for Respondent submits that the
first Will is of the year 2014 and the circumstances were largely
different as compared to the year 2017 at the time of death of the
deceased. He submits that the Respondent has been bequeathed
1 2014 SCC Online Bom 847
IA 6707.doc
the first floor of Evergreen building of Hotel Amardeep which came
to the share of the deceased Amardeep Singh. He submits that
since Covid 19 pandemic, the hotel business has been affected and
the profits earned are barely enough for upkeep of the hotel. He
submits that as per the second Will dated 12.04.2017, the income
generated from the hotel belongs to the Respondent. He submits
that under the Will of Davinder Kumar, the Applicant could be
bequeathed only the properties in which Davinder Kaur had any
right, title and interest and assuming the second Will of the year
2017 to be genuine, the Respondent is entitled to possession of
Hotel Amardeep. He submits that considering the first Will and the
third Will, the Applicant and the Respondent will own Hotel
Amardeep and therefore, the Respondent has the right to the said
property. He submits that the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was
withdrawn in order to pay maintenance to the first wife as per the
order of Family Court. He submits that the order of 15.02.2019
passed by this Court appointed Davinder Kaur as administrator
against which the Hon'ble Apex Court granted status quo and
retained the control with the Respondent. He submits that the
Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed as abated. He submits
that the conducting agreement is only for the purpose of operating
the restaurant, lounge and bar and there is no transfer of right, title
IA 6707.doc
and interest. He submits that the FIR lodged against the
Respondent is pursuant to a private dispute and the Respondent has
been granted anticipatory bail since 2023.
11. He submits that the Applicant has no knowledge of the
running of a business as she has given her own hotel business on
rent to third party. Pointing out the demand draft of Rs 7,00,000/
taken out in favour of Davinder Kaur annexed at Page 419 of the
reply, he submits that there is due compliance of order of Hon'ble
Apex Court.
12. In rejoinder, Mr. Narula, submits that though the Demand
Draft was taken out, the same was not handed over to Davinder
Kaur. He submits that in the Will of 2014, it is very clear that the
management of the hotel was to remain with Davinder Kaur. He
submits that as the decree of partition had taken place, the
property was not ancestral and in the Will of 2014, the deceased has
bequeathed all assets to Davinder Kaur and only pocket expenses
for essential commodities was to be given to the Respondent. He
submits that the judgment of 15.02.2019 of this Court notes the
conduct of the Respondent.
IA 6707.doc
13. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
14. The Applicant has invoked the provisions of Section 247 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 to seek appointment of administrator
pendente lite. Section 247 of Succession Act reads as under:
247: Administration pendente lite: Pending any suit
touching the validity of the will of a deceased person or
for obtaining or revoking any probate or any grant of
letters of administration, the Court may appoint an
administrator of the estate of such deceased person, who
shall have all the rights and powers of a general
administrator, other than the right of distributing such
estate and every such administrator shall be subject to the
immediate control of the Court and shall act under its
direction.
15. The contours of the power vested under Section 247 of
Succession Act has been succinctly summarised by Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation where it held in
paragraph 25 as under:
25. From the phraseology of the aforesaid Section, it
becomes evident that it incorporates an enabling
provision and invests the testamentary Court with power
to appoint an administrator pendente lite. The text of
aforesaid section does not, in terms, spell out the
circumstances in which an administrator pendente lite
may be appointed. Undoubtedly, the testamentary Court,
in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the
given case, ought to be satisfied as to the necessity for
appointment of an administrator pendente lite. The
object of conferring jurisdiction upon the testamentary
Court to appoint an administrator pendente lite is
IA 6707.doc
implicit. The object appears to be to ensure that the
estate of the testator is effectively managed and securely
preserved for the benefit of the persons who are
ultimately found to be entitled to succeed to it. The broad
object subsumes in its fold a situation wherein it is
brought on record that the act and conduct of the person
in possession of the estate of the testator are detrimental
to the protection and preservation of the estate. The
afore-extracted section gives ample discretion to the
Court as to the person who can be appointed as
administrator pendente lite. There is no apparent
prohibition for appointment of a party to the
testamentary proceedings as an administrator pendente
lite. However, the provision expressly puts two limitations
on the powers of the administrator pendente lite: (i) he
has no right to distribute the estate and (ii) he is subject
to the immediate control of the Court and shall act under
its direction.
16. In this context, it will also be necessary to take into
consideration the fact that under the later Will of the year 2017
propounded by the Respondent, the deceased Amardeep had
appointed the Respondent as sole executor. The provisions of
Section 211 of the Succession Act makes it clear that the executor is
the legal representative for all purposes and all the property of the
deceased person vests in him as such. The vesting of the property in
the executor is only for the purpose of representation of the estate
and the vesting is not of the beneficial interest in the property.
Under the Will of the year 2014 propounded by the Applicant as
legal heir of Davinder Kaur, the management of Hotel Amardeep
IA 6707.doc
was to remain with Davinder Kaur. Though the Will of the year 2014
bequeaths Hotel Amardeep jointly to Davinder Kaur and
Respondent by treating the property as ancestral property, it is also
stated that all assets of the deceased shall be transferred to
Davinder Kaur. The Additional Affidavit of the Applicant places on
record the preliminary decree of partition passed between the
deceased Amardeep and his brothers and that Hotel Amardeep was
allotted to the share of deceased Amardeep. It is also admitted in
the written submissions filed by the Respondent that the first floor
of the Hotel came to the share of the deceased Amardeep.
17. The estate of the deceased Amardeep consists of several
immovable properties including Hotel Amardeep which are subject
matter of civil proceedings initiated during their lifetime by the
deceased Amardeep and Davinder Kaur to restrain the Respondent
from entering into the immovable properties and to challenge the
gift deeds in respect of two flats. In the Testamentary Petitions,
caveats have been filed questioning the genuineness of the
respective Wills.
18. The position that emerges is that there is bonafide dispute
between the parties in respect of the right representation of the
IA 6707.doc
estate of the deceased and without adjudication of the genuineness
of the Wills, the Respondent cannot claim right of representation of
the estate under the Will of the year 2017, though appointed as sole
executor.
19. In the earlier round of litigation, the inquiry was conducted by
this Court as to the necessity of appointment of administrator
pendete lite though at the instance of Davinder Kaur. The
submissions of Mr. Narula in effect seeks implementation of the
order of 15th February, 2019 passed in earlier application and seeks
to substantiate the continuing necessity by pointing out the
subsequent actions of the Respondent qua the property of Hotel
Amardeep.
20. Vide order dated 15th February, 2019, the Learned Single
Judge took into consideration the litigation between the parties
and the bequests in the Wills propounded. The Court came to a
finding that the Respondent has been paying substantial amount to
his first wife as alimony out of income generated from the hotel
business while accepting that the divorce decree was only on paper,
and, that the statement of accounts clearly shows that large
amounts have been withdrawn by the Respondent from the hotel
IA 6707.doc
business towards personal expenses of the Respondent. The
Learned Single Judge directed the Respondent to hand over the
possession of all assets including the property of Hotel Amardeep
to Davinder Kaur.
21. The Appellate Court re-examined the justifiability of
appointment of administrator and whilst doing so, referred to the
dispositions in the alleged Wills. The Appellate Court noted that
there was flurry of activities in close proximity to the death of the
deceased namely decree of divorce between the Respondent and
Parmeet Kaur, marriage of the Respondent with one Ms. Sonu
Pande, execution of two gift deeds by Davinder Kaur and the
execution of the alleged Will in favor of the Respondent on
12.04.2017 which cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. The
Appellate Court came to a finding that there is strong material to
indicate that the Respondent herein has taken out money from the
income of the Hotel Amardeep and utilized the same for meeting his
personal obligations and there is material to indicate that the
Davinder Kaur was sought to be divested of all the immovable
properties and they were tried to be settled upon the first wife and
daughter of the Respondent herein. Based on these findings the
Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal.
IA 6707.doc
22. In the challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court, by order of
10th May, 2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the
Respondent to file the Income Tax Returns of the Hotel for last
three years and documentary evidence to show that he has been
running the hotel for last 20 years. Though status quo was granted,
the same was subject to payment of Rs 7,00,000/ per month to
Davinder Kaur. The order was passed on 10th May, 2019 and
Davinder Kaur expired on 19th June, 2019. Subsequently, the Hon'ble
Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as infructuous.
23. In an application under Section 247 of Succession Act, there is
two pronged inquiry to be conducted: (i) the necessity of
appointment of administrator and (ii) the person who is fit to be
appointed as administrator. There is a judicial finding of the Learned
Single Judge and Appellate Court of waste and misappropriation of
the income from the estate of the deceased. The order of the
Hon'ble Apex Court dismissing the Petition as abated has not
disturbed the findings of waste and misappropriation of income
from the property at the hands of the Respondent. The death of
Davinder Kaur results in rendering infructuous her appointment as
administrator which does not impact the judicial findings on the
necessity of appointment of administrator. The other change that
IA 6707.doc
takes place by reason of death of Davinder Kaur is that the bequest
in the Will propounded by Respondent would give right to the
Respondent to deal with the estate. However, the genuineness and
authenticity of the Wills can be decided only after recording
evidence at the stage of trial.
24. In view of the earlier findings on necessity of appointment of
administrator, the inquiry in this application would actually be
confined only to the aspect of appointing a fit person as
administrator in place of Davinder Kaur. This Court has however
gone a step ahead and considered whether there is continued
necessity for appointment of administrator.
25. There is additional material which is brought on record by the
Applicant to demonstrate the continued danger and
mismanagement of the estate of the deceased. The Respondent
though bound to hand over the assets of the deceased to Davinder
Kaur has not done so under the cover of the status quo order passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition on 10 th May,
2019. The order of status quo was subject to the payment of Rs
7,00,000/ per month to Davinder Kaur. The order was passed on 10 th
May, 2019 and Davinder Kaur expired on 19th June, 2019. The
IA 6707.doc
demand draft appended to the reply Affidavit is dated 7 th June,
2019. However there is no material on record to show that the
demand draft was handed over to Davinder Kaur. As the payment
was directed by reason of a judicial order, the normal course would
be to send the same under a covering letter and receive
acknowledgment. Mere annexing of demand draft does not show
compliance of order of Hon'ble Apex Court as there is nothing
produced to show that the demand draft was forwarded to
Davinder Kaur.
26. Now coming to the acts of the Respondent in dealing with the
estate of the deceased Amardeep. The address of Hotel Amardeep
is 12A Evergreen Building 1st Floor. There is a partnership deed
dated 18th November, 2015 executed between the Respondent and
one Mridul Singhvi in respect of a shed admeasuring about 2000
square feet owned by Hotel Amardeep behind 12A Evergreen
Building agreeing to carry on business under the name and style of
M/s 99 Hospitality and having equal share in the profits. This
agreement was executed during the lifetime of deceased
Amardeep. However, there is no consent demonstrated by the
deceased agreeing to the business of separate partnership firm
being conducted by the Respondent from the premises of Hotel
IA 6707.doc
Amardeep. The Additional Affidavit filed by the Applicant pleads
that in the year 2007, the deceased Amardeep had suffered a
paralytic stroke and by the year 2011, he was bed ridden. There is no
denial to the said pleading by the Respondent. It appears that the
Respondent started dealing with the estate of the deceased taking
advantage of the physical disability of the deceased. The business of
partnership was being carried out from the shed behind Evergreen
building and there is specific plea in the Additional Affidavit that the
Respondent had constructed the shed unauthorisedly in respect of
which Suit No 1134 of 2013 is pending. Considering that since the
year 2011, the deceased Amardeep was bed ridden, the
construction of the unauthorised shed must be at the instance of
the Respondent. The unauthorised shed has not only resulted in
litigation but has also resulted in penalty being imposed as part of
property tax.
27. The health license of Hotel Amardeep has been transferred in
the name of the Respondent's daughter. An Affidavit cum No
Objection dated 28th June, 2023 was executed by the Respondent in
support of transfer of health license in name of his daughter stating
that due to the Respondent's indifferent health and personal
difficulties, the Respondent is unable to look after the affairs of the
IA 6707.doc
said restaurant due to which the restaurant is given to his daughter
as proprietor /licensee of M/s 99 Hospitality. There is, therefore, a
statement of oath by the Respondent that he is not in a position to
look after affairs of Hotel Amardeep restaurant.
28. There is an application by the Respondent's daughter on
record seeking liquor license on behalf of M/s 99 Hospitality giving
its address at 12 A Evergreen Building, Khar, which is the property of
Hotel Amardeep. The report of Excise Department records that the
Respondent's daughter has submitted health department license
and license from Maharashtra Shops and Establishment regarding
the establishment of M/s 99 Hospitality at 12 A Evergreen Building,
Khar. The report states that the premises i.e. 12A Evergreen building
was rented out by the Respondent to M/s 99 Hospitality for 55
months i.e. from 25th June, 2023 to 24th December, 2027.
29. There is a conducting agreement dated 14 th October, 2021
entered into by M/s 99 Hospitality with Rohra Hospitality LLP by
which it was agreed that the business of the restaurant, lounge and
bar shall be conducted by the conductor for a period of 5 years on
payment of conducting fee.
IA 6707.doc
30. The Interim Application No 6707 of 2025 sets out the demand
notice dated 24th October, 2024 issued by the Municipal Corporation
for outstanding property taxes of Rs 86,83,158/- for the period from
1st April, 2012 to 31st March, 2023. The contents of the demand
notice makes it clear that the Respondent has defaulted in payment
of property taxes since the year 2012. Though it is stated that the
demand notice has been challenged, what assumes significance is
that there is default in payment of property taxes in respect of
estate of deceased which results in a threat of public auctioning of
the property.
31. During the hearing of these proceedings, upon query by this
Court as regards the accounts of the hotel business, Mr. Kedia had
sought time to provide the audited balance sheets, books of
accounts, ledger account books and guest register of last seven
years. The Respondent has produced on record the returns for the
years 2023-2024, 2024-2025, 2025-2026 without producing the
supporting books of accounts, guest registers etc. The returns
shows income of approximately Rs 1,00,000/- per month.
32. It is the contention of Respondent that post Covid 19
pandemic, the hotel business has suffered resulting in low profits
IA 6707.doc
only sufficient for upkeep of the hotel. The conducting agreement
with M/s Rohra Hospitality LLP which is of the year 2021 shows that
the conducting fee agreed was minimum guarantee amount of Rs
1,50,000/- per month or 15% of the net sales, whichever is higher.
This shows that the parties estimated the minimum assured revenue
of Rs 1,50,000/-, in the year 2021 during covid pandemic, which must
necessarily been arrived at by factoring the past business revenue.
This conducting agreement is only in respect of the shed without
including business of Hotel Amardeep and the revenue generated
from Hotel Amardeep would be in addition to the income from the
shed. The order of Appellate Court records that the monthly
maintenance of Rs 7,00,000/- was being paid out of the hotel
income. The hotel is located strategically near the western suburb
railway station and it is difficult to accept that the hotel which was
earning more than Rs 7,00,000/- per month would now earn only Rs
1,00,000/- per month. The material on record demonstrates the
falsity in the claim of the Respondent that the hotel business has
suffered a set back post Covid pandemic and would substantiate the
claim of the Applicant that the Respondent has been siphoning off
the funds from the hotel business. The income tax returns produced
cannot be believed in view of the material on record.
IA 6707.doc
33. The inquiry which was conducted in the earlier round of
litigation initiated by Davinder Kaur had culminated into a judicial
finding of necessity of appointment of administrator. The
subsequent developments substantiated by adequate material on
record would indicate that the Respondent has thereafter
attempted to hand over the hotel and the hotel business to the
proprietorship/partnership firm of his daughter and has ensured
transfer of health license in her name. The restaurant business
conducted from the premises of Hotel Amardeep was shared with
Mridul Singhvi by entering into partnership business and was
thereafter sought to be given to Rohra Hospitality LLP. All these
endeavours have run into rough weather with civil and criminal
proceedings initiated by third parties claiming rights in the property
of the deceased. In addition there is default in payment of property
taxes.
34. In its affidavit-in-reply, the Respondent has suppressed the
fact of transfer of the health license in favour of the Respondent's
daughter or the execution of the conducting agreement in favour of
the third party. The only objection which has been raised in the
affidavit-in-reply is of the competence of the Applicant to run the
business of Hotel Amardeep as the Applicant has given her own
IA 6707.doc
Hotel Chena Garden on rent to third party.
35. The acts by the Respondent in entering into partnership deed
with third party in respect of the business being conducted from the
premises of Hotel Amardeep, transferring the health license in
favour of his daughter, entering into conducting agreement with
third parties resulting in landing the estate into litigation and the
mounting arrears demonstrates a danger to the estate of the
deceased and creates a reasonable apprehension of the estate
being dissipated. As discussed above, the income tax returns does
not reflect the actual income, which shows that the Respondent is
siphoning off the income received from the hotel business. The
Respondent has filed his Affidavit with the Corporation stating that
he is unable to look after the affairs of the restaurant and he has
given the restaurant to his daughter who is proprietor of M/s 99
Hospitality.
36. The intent of Section 247 of Succession Act is preservation of
the estate of the testator and effective management till the
determination of the dispute. The Applicant has demonstrated the
continued necessity of appointment of administrator pendente lite
to protect the estate of the deceased for purpose of devolution on
IA 6707.doc
the persons who are ultimately found entitled to succeed to the
same.
37. The next question is as to the fit person who can be appointed
as administrator. The Applicant seeks her appointment as
administrator and the Respondent contends that the Applicant has
herself rented out her hotel business to third party. A similar
contention was raised in the application of Davinder Kaur that she
was inexperienced which was negated in earlier round of litigation.
The Respondent in his Affidavit to Corporation has pleaded his
inability to run the business. The renting of the hotel by the
Applicant cannot be construed to mean that the Applicant will be
unable to run Hotel Amardeep with the assistance of experienced
personnel.
38. In light of the above discussion, the Applicant has made out a
case for her appointment as administrator pendente lite in respect
of estate of the deceased Amardeep with all rights and powers of a
general administrator including the control of the hotel business run
in the name of Amardeep Lodging Boarding and Restaurant and Bar
subject to control of the Court. In the application, the alternate
prayer of the Applicant was for direction to the Respondent to pay
IA 6707.doc
fixed amount of Rs 7,00,000/- to the Applicant considering the
substantial income from the hotel business.
39. As the contention is of cash revenue being generated, in my
view, it is imperative for an impartial person to be appointed as joint
administrator. It will be appropriate if the Court Receiver is
appointed as joint Administrator pendente lite in respect of the
property and business of Hotel Amardeep. Considering the
alternate prayer of the Applicant, the administrators upon taking
charge of the assets of the deceased including Hotel Amardeep is
directed to deposit Rs 7,00,000/ per month in this Court, which is to
be invested in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for the benefit
of the person who would be entitled to succeed to the estate.
40. Resultantly, the following order is passed:
(a) The Applicant and the Court Receiver are appointed as
joint administrators in respect of the property and estate
of the deceased.
(b) The Respondent is directed to hand over custody of all
assets of the deceased Amardeep in possession of the
Respondent including the property on which the hotel
business is carried out in name of Amardeep Lodging
IA 6707.doc
Boarding and Restaurant and Board alongwith all
documents pertaining to the assets of the deceased to the
administrators within period of four weeks from date of
this order.
(c) The administrators would be entitled to conduct the
business of hotel and restaurant with the assistance of
appropriate personnel including a manager.
(d) The administrators shall maintain accounts in respect of
the business of Hotel Amardeep and the restaurant and
shall file six monthly accounts in this Court. The
Respondent is permitted to obtain copies of such reports
upon payment of requisite charges.
(e) The administrators shall open a bank account in name
of "Administrator-estate of Amardeep Singh Sujan Singh
Chadha" in any nationalised bank and operate the account
in name of the estate of the deceased.
(f) The administrators to deposit Rs 7,00,000/ per month in
this Court, which is to be invested in fixed deposit in any
nationalised bank for the benefit of the person who would
be entitled to succeed to the estate.
(g) The costs charges and expenses of the Court Receiver
to be deferred from the income from the business of Hotel
IA 6707.doc
Amardeep after obtaining approval of the Court.
(h) Liberty to the Respondent to seek modification or recall
of the appointment of Applicant as administrator in event
the condition of deposit of Rs 7,00,000/ per month is not
complied with.
41. Miscellaneous Petition and Interim Application is allowed in
the above terms.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)
