1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.111 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.592 OF 2004 Rajkumar Singh Arora C.A. of Rajan Topandas Chugani .. Petitioner Versus Sadarangani & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.Kawli i/b. Rita Bhatia for petitioner Ms.Neha Mehta i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondent No.1 Mr.Kirit Modi i/b. Haridas & Co. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th December 2008 P.C. . I am informed that a sum of Rs.93,56,045 is deposited by the first respondent as stated by them. 2. Mr.Kirit Modi appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that a sum of 2 Rs.20,193.84 is still lying to the credit of the respondent No.1 in the current account of M/s.Roman Fashions. Mr.Modi states that within such time stipulated by this Court, that amount will also be deposited with the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court. Let that be done by 12th Januaryh 2009. 3. Mr.Kawli on instructions makes a statement that the Constituted Attorney of the Executor, will file an undertaking before this Court stating in clearest terms that when the amount deposited in this Court is handed over to him, he shall disburse and/or distribute the same in accordance with the wishes of the Testator as evidenced by the will. 4. Upon such an undertaking filed to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court, the amount deposited will be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner. The 3 petitioner will also be entitled to withdraw the further sums deposited by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the same undertaking being furnished. 5. Mr.Kawli states that the amount ought to have been deposited/handed over long time back and the first respondent has used this money which legitimately belong to the heirs/ beneficiaries under the will. It should have been made available for distribution and disbursement much earlier and since monies are used and utilised by the first respondent, he should be directed to pay interest at such rate as is stipulated by this Court. 6. It is contended on behalf of the first respondent that there is no prayer for payment of interest. There is no such request made when the amount was sought to be deposited. In such circumstances, the request made by the petitioner cannot be considered. 4 7. It is clear from the affidavit in support and more particularly para 8 thereof, that the amount of Rs.75 lakhs is deposited with S.B.I. Chennai between the period February 1991 to February 1992. The averments further show that the entitlement of the beneficiaries has not been disputed at any time. The petition was filed for gant of Letters of Administration with Will Annexed and during the pendency of the petition also there was correspondence. The details were sought with regard to the monies lying and it is clear from the Annexures G and H to the affidavit in support that the first respondent’s Advocate sought some details, although he was made aware of the grant much earlier. 8. It is clear from the averments that the amount should have been paid over much earlier. Even if the first respondent’s Advocate now seeks to file affidavit in reply, it is apparent to me 5 that the correspondence which is forming part of the record of this motion and as Annexures to the affidavit in support, has not been disputed. The Letters of Administration with will annexed has been granted on 18th August 2007. 10. In such circumstances, in my view, it would not be necessary to accede to the request of first respondent to grant further time. More so, considering the limited relief that I propose to grant, insofar as the interest is concerned. Taking an over all view of the matter and balancing the equities, I direct that the first respondent should pay interest on the sum of Rs.75 lakhs from 18th August 2007 till the deposit of the same at 6% p.a. Balance sum be paid by the first respondent within eight weeks from the date of receipt of authenticated copy of this order. Motion disposed of accordingly. 6 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)