[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Kamla Jindal (Dec.) -And- Karan Paul vs Rajiv Jindal on 16 December, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
O-68
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/6/2025
WITH
PLA/96/2020
IA NO: GA/1/2024
IN THE GOODS OF :
KAMLA JINDAL (DEC.) -AND- KARAN PAUL
VS
RAJIV JINDAL
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
-AND-
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
For the Appellant : Mr. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi, Adv.
Ms. Iram Hassan, Adv.
Mr. Aritra Basu, Adv.
Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Sanket Saraogi, Adv.
Ms. Yukti Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Bhawsinghka, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Soumalya Ganguli, Adv.
HEARD ON : 16.12.2025
DELIVERED ON : 16.12.2025
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated October
5, 2024 passed in GA/1/2022 in PLA/96/2020.
2. The appeal is at the behest of the executor of a Will.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge,
extended the time for completion of administration of estate of the
testator, within a period of three months from the date of the
impugned judgment and order. Learned Single Judge required the
executor to submit a report of the true inventory within two weeks
thereafter. Learned Single Judge also directed the executor to bear
the cost and charges defending GA/1/2022. Learned Single Judge
also held the executor liable to return the money spent from the
estate of the testator on account of the legal charges, if any, to the
fund of the estate.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that,
the testator expired on November 21, 2018. The appellant was
named as the executor of the Will of the testator dated May 1,
2010. Application for grant of probate of the Will of the testator was
filed on March 20, 2020 and that, probate was granted on
February 19, 2021.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that,
the estate of the deceased, involved not only movable but also
immovable properties. There were bank accounts of the testator.
Since, death certificate of the testator was not available, banks
were refusing to pass on the accruals in the accounts of the
testator, in terms of the probate granted. Appellant as the executor,
filed a writ petition after which, the death certificate was obtained.
He points out that, the death certificate of the testator was
obtained in the end of May, 2022. Thereafter, the bank accounts
were operated.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that,
the application for removal was filed on June 29, 2022 resulting in
the impugned judgment and order. He submits that, subsequent to
June 29, 2022, various other steps were taken such as, realising
the amounts from the respondent herein on account of
compensation received by the respondent from National Highway
Authority of India, amongst others. He submits on instructions
that, the estate now stands fully administered with appropriate
reports being filed in the Department.
7. Respondent is represented.
8. We find from the records that, Kamla Jindal expired on November
21, 2018 after leaving behind the last Will and Testament dated
May 1, 2010.
9. The last Will and Testament of the testator, named two persons as
executors. One of the executors named in the Will, expired prior to
the expiry of the testator, leaving the appellant as the surviving
executor.
10. An application for Letters of Administration was filed before this
Hon'ble Court on March 20, 2020 which was allowed on February
19, 2021.
11. Materials on record suggest that, although, Letters of
Administration were granted on February 19, 2021, since, the
death certificate of the testator was not available, the banks were
refusing to allow operation of the bank accounts of the testator.
12. Materials on record establish that, a writ petition was required
to be filed for the purpose of obtaining the death certificate of the
testator. Death certificate of the testator was obtained towards the
end of May, 2022. Thereafter, the bank account of the testator was
allowed to be operated by the bank.
13. An application for removal of the appellant as the executor was
filed by the respondent on June 29, 2022. Such application gave
rise to the impugned judgment and order.
14. Materials on record establish that, subsequent to the appellant
as the executor obtaining the death certificate of the testator,
appellant took steps for the purpose of administration of the estate
of the deceased. The appellant obtained the proceeds of the bank
accounts after submission of the death certificate of the testator
with relevant banks. Appellant as the executor disbursed the
amount in terms of the Will, to the respective beneficiaries.
15. Materials on record also establish that, the respondent received
a quantum of sum belonging to the estate of the testator, from the
National Highway Authority of India. There is a slew of
correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the
respondent with regard to the sum received by the respondent in
respect of the estate of the testator, from National Highway
Authority of India.
16. Ultimately, the appellant was successful in administering the
estate of the testator and submit relevant reports before the
Department.
17. By the Impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge, did
not remove the appellant as an executor. Rather, the learned Single
Judge, granted the appellant time to complete the administration
of the estate within three months from the date of the judgment
and order and to submit the report of true inventory within two
weeks thereafter. The appellant complied with such portion of the
impugned judgment and order. Administration of the estate is
presently complete and relevant reports are with the Department
filed by the appellant.
18. So far as the cost of defending GA/1/2022 which resulted in the
impugned judgment and order, is concerned, learned Single Judge
directed the appellant to bear such cost as also to return the
money spent from the estate of the testator on account of legal
charges, if any.
19. We are of the view that, the learned Single Judge did not find
that the appellant was guilty of the delay in administering the
estate. In any event, we find that, the appellant was impeded by
circumstances beyond his control, in administering the estate
effectively and expeditiously till such time, he was able to do so.
20. In such circumstances, the portion of the impugned and order,
which directs the appellant to bear the cost and charges in
defending GA/1/2022 and be made liable to return the money
spent from the estate of the testator on account of such legal
charges, to the estate, is set aside.
21. APO/6/2025 along with all other connected applications are
disposed of accordingly, without any order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
22. I agree
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
KB
AR(CR)
