AJN 16-cmOS-APP101.02 GROUP 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.101 OF 2002 Amrish Kilachand. ... Appellant Vs. Shreemati Ambalal Kilachand & Ors. ... Respondents WITH APPEAL NO.103 OF 2002 Amrish Kilachand. ... Appellant Vs. A.P. Yagnik & Ors. ... Respondents WITH APPEAL NO.104 OF 2002 Amrish Kilachand. ... Appellant Vs. Shreemati Ambalal Kilachand & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Karl Tamboli with Mr. Durush Marfatia i/b M/s. Bharucha & Partners for the appellant. Mr. S.E. Bharucha i/b D.M. Nanavati & Co. for respondent 3. AJN 16-cmOS-APP101.02 GROUP 2 Mr. Arun Siwach i/b Amarchand Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co. for respondents 6, 7, 11 and 12 in Appeal No. 101 of 2002 and Appeal No.102 of 2002. Mr. Gautam Patel i/b M/s. Tayabji Dayabhai for respondent 8. Ms. A.B. Kapadia i/b M/s. D. Ferriera & Diwan for respondents 5 and 9. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2011. P.C.:- 1. These appeals were heard and the order was dictated. However, the order could not be signed because on behalf of respondents 6, 7, 11 and 12, vakalatnama was not filed. Counsel for the parties, therefore, requested the court to treat these appeals as part heard. Subsequently, vakalatnama was filed and as per the directions obtained from the Chief Justice, the appeals were treated as part heard. Hence, the following order: 2. The issues raised in these three appeals revolve around the administration of the estate of the deceased Ambalal Kilachand. Misc. Petition No.95 of 2009 filed by AJN 16-cmOS-APP101.02 GROUP 3 the appellant under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1923 is pending before learned Single Judge of this court. 3. So far as Appeal No.104 of 2002 is concerned, by impugned order dated 10/10/2001 in Notice of Motion No. 1413 of 2000 with Notice of Motion No.1618 of 2000, learned Single Judge had appointed respondents 1 to 3 as executors and they were directed to complete the distribution of the estate as per the Will, within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order. The order impugned in Appeal No.101 of 2002 is dated 2/11/2001. It is passed on the same notice of motions. Directions were sought against respondents 1 to 3. Learned Single Judge did not grant interim relief and disposed of the notice of motion with clarification that the appellant shall be at liberty to raise the issues at the time of final hearing of the suit. 4. In Appeal No.103 of 2002, order dated 2/11/2001 AJN 16-cmOS-APP101.02 GROUP 4 passed in Notice of Motion No.911 of 2001 taken out in Misc. Petition No.4 of 2001 was challenged. Misc. Petition No.4 of 2001 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 praying that respondent 3 be discharged from the office of executor- ship of the estate of deceased Ambalal Khilachand as well as for being discharged as a trustee of the Ambashree Charity Trust. Notice of Motion No.911 of 2001 was taken out by the appellant, inter alia, for direction to respondents 1 to 3 to render full and complete accounts of the estate of the deceased. By the impugned order dated 2/11/2001, respondent 3 was discharged subject to certain conditions imposed in that order. 5. In view of the fact that respondents 1 and 2 are dead and respondent 3 is discharged from the executor-ship with certain conditions, learned counsel for the parties state that the appeals be disposed of by keeping all contentions of all parties open to be agitated in Misc. Petition No.95 of 2009 filed by the appellant under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1923 pending before AJN 16-cmOS-APP101.02 GROUP 5 learned Single Judge of this court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that liberty may be granted to the appellant to take out chamber summons in Misc. Petition No.95 of 2009 for bringing legal heirs of the deceased executors on record. Counsel for the parties state that liberty may be granted to the parties to raise the contentions as regards the administration and the state of affairs of the estate of the deceased for the period from 2001 to 2011. 7. Hence, the following order : In view of the statement made by learned counsel, we dispose of Appeal No.101 of 2002 and Appeal No.104 of 2002 keeping all contentions of all parties open. However, so far as Appeal No.103 of 2002 is concerned, we find that learned Single Judge has imposed certain conditions on respondent 3 – Dipak J. Shukla. He was directed to file an undertaking. Counsel for respondent 3 – Dipak J. Shukla states that accordingly, undertaking is AJN 16-cmOS-APP101.02 GROUP 6 filed by respondent 3 – Dipak J. Shukla on 9/11/2001. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the parties that Appeal No.103 of 2002 be also disposed of, we dispose of the said appeal. However, the conditions imposed on respondent 3 by learned Single Judge vide order dated 2/11/2001 impugned in Appeal No.103 of 2002 shall continue to bind him i.e. Dipak J. Shukla and undertaking given by him dated 9/11/2001 shall also continue to bind him. We give liberty to the appellant to take out chamber summons in Misc. Petition No.95 of 2009 for bringing legal heirs of the deceased executors on record, if he so desires. Parties are granted liberty to raise their contentions as regards the administration and the state of affairs of the estate of the deceased for the period from 2001 to 2011. We make it clear that we have not discharged the conditions imposed by learned Single Judge on respondent 3 vide order dated 2/11/2001 passed on Notice of Motion No.911 of 2001. We leave all contentions of all parties open, to be dealt with by learned Single Judge who would undoubtedly deal with them AJN 16-cmOS-APP101.02 GROUP 7 independently and in accordance with law. 8. The parties can pray before learned Single Judge for expeditious hearing of the said petition. In view of disposal of the appeals, the pending chamber summons and the notices of motion, if any, in the respective appeals stand disposed of. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]