Bombay High Court
VANDANA VISHWANATH CHALKEversusSMITA AJAY YEOLE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SHARMILA U DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court permitted withdrawal of the 27 July 2018 undertaking, rejected withdrawal of the 29 August 2018 order, and allowed the filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination.
Summary
The Court considered an interim application filed by Defendant No.2, Vandana Vishwanath Chalke, seeking (a) withdrawal of an undertaking dated 27 July 2018 that barred her from instituting any proceedings, (b) withdrawal of an order dated 29 August 2018 directing cessation of contacts and record‑keeping with defence establishments, and (c) permission to file an affidavit in lieu of oral examination. The Court held that the settlement contemplated in the earlier undertaking was no longer possible, and therefore allowed the withdrawal of the 27 July undertaking. It observed that the 29 August document was a court order, not an undertaking, and therefore the request to withdraw it could not be granted. The request to file an affidavit was allowed as the trial was proceeding. Consequently, the interim application was allowed in the above terms.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant can withdraw the undertaking dated 27 July 2018 restricting her from instituting proceedings.
- Whether the applicant can withdraw the order dated 29 August 2018 directing cessation of contacts and record‑keeping.
- Whether the applicant may be permitted to file an affidavit in lieu of oral examination in the pending testamentary suit.
Subjects
- interim application
- withdrawal of undertaking
- testamentary suit
- court order
- affidavit in lieu of examination
- civil procedure
- administrators
- court receiver
Judgment
2026:BHC-OS:4315
10 ia 3450-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3450 OF 2023
IN
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 175 OF 2013
Vandana Vishwanath Chalke ... Applicant.
In the matter between:
Smita Ajay Yeole ... Plainti(.
Versus
Milind Vishwanath Chalke and Anr. ... Defendants.
—————
Mr Ashok Mishra for the Applicant.
Mr Rohaan Cama a/w. Mr Anish Karandi and Ms Kinjal Shah i/by Rashmikant
and Partners for the original Plainti .
Mr Akash Singh for the Defendant No.1.
—————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : February 12, 2026
P.C. :
1. Interim Application has been preferred seeking following
reliefs.
a. That, This Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit to withdraw
the undertaking, dated 27th July, 2018, thereby modifying
the said order, dated 27th July, 2018.
b. That, This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Applicant
withdraw the undertaking dated 29th August 2018 and
thereby entitle the Applicant to take necessary steps to
gather necessary information pertaining to the records
and transactions of M/s Oriental Weaving Pvt. Ltd.,
including but not limited to RTI, emails, telephonic
communications, enquiries, etc.
sa_mandawgad 1 of 4
10 ia 3450-23.doc
c. That, This Hon'ble Court be pleased to expedite the
captioned Testamentary suit no.175 of 2013 in
Testamentary Petition no. 551 of 2013 and the Applicant
be permitted to 8le her A9davit in lieu of examination in
chief and be accordingly cross examined, prior to the
Plainti leading her evidence.
d. That, This Hon'ble Court be pleased to discharge the Ld.
Joint Administrators from their duties as entrusted upon
them, vide orders dated 13th January, 2016 and 5th April,
2016, and thereby allow the parties hereto, to take over
and look after the business of the estate of deceased, Mr.
Vishwanath Chalke.
e. That, in the alternative to prayer clause (c), This Hon'ble
Court be pleased to appoint Court Receiver in place of the
present administrators to look after the estate of the
deceased, Mr. Vishwanath Chalke.
2. Insofar as the application for discharge of the administrator and
appointment of Court Receiver is concerned, learned counsel
appearing for the Applicant submits that an independent application
would be taken out for seeking the said reliefs and he does not press
for the said reliefs in the present application. The application is
therefore being considered only in respect of prayer clauses (a), (b)
and (c) is concerned.
3. Insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the Applicant who is
original Defendant No.2 seeks to be relieved of the undertaking noted
in paragraph 3 of the order of 27 th July, 2018 by which the Applicant
had agreed that she will not proceed with any applications, petitions,
sa_mandawgad 2 of 4
10 ia 3450-23.doc
or other proceedings before NCLT or any other Court or Tribunal.
What is pertinent to note is the observation of the Hon’ble Court that
the undertaking is required because what is attempted is the
settlement of all dispute between the parties. It is now informed to
this Court that there is no possibility of settlement and the suit is
proceeding for trial. In view thereof, the undertaking given by the
Applicant and as noted in paragraph 3 of the order dated 27 th July,
2018 is permitted to be withdrawn.
4. It is open for the Applicant to prosecute court proceedings or
proceedings before the Tribunal. Needless to clarify that as the
application has been preferred only by Defendant No.2, only the
Applicant is relieved of the said undertaking.
5. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, though prayer clause
(b) speaks of undertaking dated 29th August, 2018, perusal of the
order of 29th August, 2018 indicates that the same is an order of the
Court. Paragraph 4 of the order dated 29 th August, 2018 reads as
under:
“4. To put the matter beyond all controversy:
(a) There will be a complete cessation of all contact, direct
or indirect contact, between the Defendants, Mr
Milind Chalke and Mrs Vandana Chalke, and the
Defence Establishments, whether by means of RTI
applications, enquiries, telephone calls, e-mails,
correspondence or otherwise.
sa_mandawgad 3 of 4
10 ia 3450-23.doc
(b) For her part the Plaintif will ensure that she and
Oriental Weaving maintain complete and accurate
records of all transactions with the Defence
Establishments. They agree and undertake to make
these available to Court in such circumstances and in
such manner as the Court may direct at an appropriate
time in response to any application that may be Aled
by the Defendants. This is also accepted as an
undertaking to the Court.”
6. In event, the Applicant is aggrieved by order of 29 th August,
2018, it is open for the Applicant to challenge the same. As the order
of 29th August, 2018 is not an undertaking but an order of the Court,
prayer clause (b) cannot be granted.
7. Insofar as the prayer (c) is concerned, the Plainti( has examined
PW-2 and the matter is proceeding for trial and hence prayer clause (c)
stands worked out.
8. Interim Application is allowed in the above terms.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
sa_mandawgad 4 of 4
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/02/2026 12:13:42
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.