Sarawgi vs Santosh Kumari
2025 Latest Caselaw 3524 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Sarawgi vs Santosh Kumari on 17 December, 2025

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OD-8                      ORDER SHEET


                            IA No.GA 2 of 2025
                                    In
                             PLA 300 of 2024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION


                        IN THE GOODS OF :
 GITA PRASAD ALIAS GITA DEVI ALIAS GITA DEVI PRASAD, DECEASED


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 17th December, 2025.

Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi, Ms. Iram Hasan, Mr. Sanket Sarawgi, Mr. Samriddha Sen, Ms. Yukti Agarwal, Advocates for the petitioner.

The Court : This is an application for grant of probate which

involves shares both in physical and in dematerialized form. So far as

shares in physical form are concerned it is submitted that they are

presently in the possession of the executor. In respect of the

dematerialized account it is submitted that the same is maintained from

Salt Lake within the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal. The

question which falls for consideration is based on several judgments of

this Court which has held that the registered office of the companies

which are situate outside the State of West Bengal are to be considered as

properties and assets. This gives rise to the jurisdiction of this Court to

entertain such an application for grant by invoking the provisions of

Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, the moment

Section 300 gets attracted it prima facie appears to this Court that the

effect of Section 273 comes into operation, as a consequence whereof the

value of the property and estate effected beyond the limits of the State of

West Bengal in excess of Rs.10,000/- also gets attracted. It also appears

that the moment the High Court is exercising concurrent jurisdiction, the

provision of Section 273(a) gets eliminated and the High Court is not

exercising the jurisdiction as a High Court under Clause 34 of the Letters

Patent, 1865. Furthermore, Clause 34 in view of the excluding provisions

contained therein also appears to have got excluded in view of Section

300 of the 1925 Act which is an act passed by a competent legislature as

indicated in the last portion of Clause 34 of Letters Patent, 1865. This

provision read with the amendment to Section 2(aa) of the 1925 Act prima

facie appears to debar this Court from exercising jurisdiction under

Clause 34 of the Letters Patent, 1865.

The issues are required to be gone into in the light of the two

Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in AIR 2012 Cal 7 [In

Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (Deceased) and Rai Kumar Sadh v. Santosh Kumari

Mahendra Kumar Sadh] and 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7999 [In the matter of :

Prabir Chandra Sen, In the matter of : Dhruba Ghosh . . .Appellant].

Mr. Sen, learned Advocate representing the petitioner seeks an

adjournment to look into these provisions and take necessary

instructions.

Let this matter appear in the monthly list of January, 2026.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

pa