1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4188 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1283 OF 2005 Shekha Bharat Arora .. Plaintiff Vs. Mela Ram Dhawan & Ors. .. Defendants Mr. K. V. Tambe for the Plaintiff. Mr. S. P. Kanuga with S. N. Nath for Defendant Nos.1 & 3. Mr. J. Lentin for Defendant No.2. Mr. Behram Shroth for Opponent No.1. Mr. Vivek S. Sawant with Mr. K. Kaushik for Opponent No.2 CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 31st March, 2010. P.C. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.1, the father of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 & 3 as well as opponent No.1 for liquidating the matured 4 RBI Bonds worth Rs.1.7 lacs. The Notice of Motion is also filed for an order of handing over jewellery in the locket which is the subject matter of this suit. The defendants have pressed the relief in respect of RBI Bonds only. 2. The parties had entered into certain Consent Terms on 18.09.2009 in which the list inter alia of aforesaid 4 Bonds were made out. The RBI Bonds mentioned in the list along with National Savings Certificate mentioned in the list were to be encashed. The sum of Rs.2.5 lacs with interest 2 which would be obtained upon encashment was to be kept in separate bank accounts by defendant No.3, the son of defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 consented to this act as they were told that the amounts were required for the maintenance of their father. They claim that they have learnt that several other investments of about Rs.20 lacs without interest in the single name of the father have all been liquidated by defendant No.3 and misappropriated by him. 3. NSCs have been encashed. Defendant No.3 has not shown the separate bank account which he has opened for depositing the proceeds of the NSCs. The 4 RBI Bonds which remained to be encashed are in the joint names of defendant No.1 and opponent No.1 and the plaintiff. 4. Opponent No.1 and the plaintiff do not agree to have these encashed in view of the fact that defendant No.3 has not shown any account of the other investments. 5. Advocate for the State Bank of India states that defendant No.1 has instructed the bank not to allow any payment upon the RBI Bonds. 6. Defendant No.3 has been the constituted attorney of defendant No.1, his father since 2004. The father is stated to be bed-ridden since some time. Defendant No.3 must therefore explain how the single investments of the father came to be liquidated and where the proceeds of those investments have been deposited or credited and now they have been utilized. Until that is done, the consent order which was essentially for the 3 upkeep and maintenance of defendant No.1, cannot be further ordered to be complied. 7. It may be mentioned that the parties to these litigations stand in a fiduciary capacity. They require to disclose all the facts which would be required to be shown in respect of their aged father. It is seen that several investments of the father have been suppressed from the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and opponent No.1. 8. There shall be no order in this Notice of Motion and no order as to costs. (R. S. DALVI, J.)