Bombay High Court
KAMLESH HIMMANTLAL SHAH AND ORSversusJASWANTLAL MOHANLAL KHANDAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court Receiver’s Report is disposed of and the interim application is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, Kamlesh Himmantlal Shah and others, filed a miscellaneous petition against Jaswantlal Mohanlal Khandar and others, which involved a Court Receiver’s Report concerning the distribution of sums to multiple applicants. The sole remaining applicant, represented by Ms. Tanaya Patankar and Mr. Rahul Shirgavkar, agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 8,29,026 as computed by the chartered accountants appointed by the Court Receiver, thereby seeking closure of the matter. The Court noted that the other twelve applicants were entitled to their respective sums as per the order dated 27 July 2026, subject to proof of entitlement, and that one applicant, Suman Ravji, had died without legal heirs. The Judge disposed of the Court Receiver’s Report, ordered that the costs be borne from the deceased’s estate, and dismissed the pending interim application (L) No. 26698 of 2022 as there was nothing left to consider. The issue of the chartered accountant’s fee schedule was deferred for later determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court Receiver’s Report can be disposed of after the applicant’s acceptance of the computed sum
- Whether costs of the report may be charged to the estate of a deceased applicant with no heirs
- Whether the pending interim application should be dismissed as there is no remaining matter
Subjects
- Court Receiver
- interim application
- valuation report
- costs from estate
- disposal of report
- multiple applicants
Judgment
1/3 14 CRR-75-2026.DOC
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SAIRAJ
SAIRAJ SANJAY
SANJAY KARANDE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
KARANDE Date:
2026.09.09
10:37:30
+0530
COURT RECEIVER REPORT NO. 75 OF 2026
IN
MISC. PETITION NO. 149 OF 2016
Kamlesh Himmantlal Shah and Others …Petitioners
Vs.
Jaswantlal Mohanlal Khandar and Others … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 26698 OF 2022
IN
MISC. PETITION NO. 149 OF 2016
_______
Ms. Tanaya Patankar i/b Mr. Rahul Shirgavkar for Applicant.
Mr. Tejas Vora, D. R. Mishra for Petitioner.
Ms. Nandini Deshpande, 1st Assistant to Court Receiver.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. Ms. Patankar, learned counsel for the Applicant today submitted that her
clients were willing to accept the sum of Rs. 8,29,026/- as computed by MVD
and Associates, C.A. Firm appointed by the Court Receiver. This puts an end to
the matter at hand.
Sairaj
2/3 14 CRR-75-2026.DOC
2. Since today, there is only one Applicant before the Court, the Court
Receiver’s Report is disposed with the following directions:
“The other twelve Applicants shall on production of
the necessary proof be entitled to sums as recorded
in the order of 27th July, 2026 be entitled to their
respective sums as computed by Chartered
Accountant on the basis of valuation report already
submitted.”
3. 1st Assistant to Court Receiver who is present in Court informs me that
directions have also been sought in prayer clause (b) of the Court Receiver’s
Report, however, no documents have been submitted in respect of one Suman
Ravji. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the said Suman Ravji
has passed away and does not have any legal heirs.
4. The Court Receiver’s Report is accordingly, disposed of.
5. Nothing survives for consideration in Interim application (L) No. 26698 of
2022, and the same stand disposed of.
6. The costs pertaining to the said report shall be borne from the estate of the
deceased.
7. 1st Assistant to Court Receiver also puts up before me the bill of Chartered
Accountant, however, it was not clear as to whether the same has been raised as
Sairaj
3/3 14 CRR-75-2026.DOC
per the schedule of fees. To enable the Court Receiver to verify the same, this
issue will be considered later on.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
Sairaj
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.