HC orders Harsh Kilachand to distribute family estate according to father’s will | Mumbai news
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday directed businessman Harsh Kilachand to distribute his family’s movable and immovable assets according to the will of his late father, Rajnikant Kilachand, who was once one of the wealthiest businessmen in the city.
A single-judge bench of justice NJ Jamadar granted Harsh Kilachand six months and two months to distribute the immovable and movable assets, respectively. The court warned that a failure to adhere to the schedule would render him liable to be removed as the executor of his father’s will.
Rajnikant Kilachand had executed a will around five months before his death on August 6, 1997, and named Harsh the executor of the testament. In January 1999, Harsh filed a petition for probate, a legal process that establishes the validity of a will and gives the executor authority to distribute the deceased person’s assets. The high court granted the probate on October 27, 2016.
However, in 2021, Harsh’s mother, Ramila, filed a petition in the high court saying that he had failed to discharge his duties as the will’s executor for a long time and had not distributed the family’s properties. She also claimed that Harsh continued to stonewall her request for an expeditious distribution of the estate even when she was hospitalised in 2021 and required money for medical expenses. After Ramila’s death in February 2024, her other son, Amrish, stepped in her shoes and pressed for the expeditious distribution of the family estate.
Harsh contested the plea, contending that part of the estate belongs to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), a distinct legal entity whose assets could not be distributed without dissolving it by executing a Deed of Partition or a Memorandum of Family Settlement.
His counsel further argued that Ramila and Amrish had disputed the accounts—of receivables by the family in terms of dividends on shareholding, bank balances, securities, etc—furnished by Harsh, and had initiated legal proceedings alleging that the accounts were false and fabricated.
Harsh’s lawyer added that the distribution of the entire estate without resolving the controversy may lead to a situation where the executor may be required to face further litigation and, therefore, his client was justified in taking the stand that until the HUF was dissolved, there can be no final distribution of the estate.
Justice Jamadar, however, refused to accept the argument, saying Harsh’s stand was “not in consonance with the duties of an executor” of the will. Instructing Harsh to distribute the estate according to the will, the court said, “Once the respondent obtained a probate by filing an affidavit to distribute the estate in accordance with the will of the testator, on first principles, it is not open to the executor to put a condition for acceptance of the bequeath and obtain an indemnity from the beneficiaries.”
The court also disapproved of Harsh’s insistence that his brother should not dispute the accounts he furnished, withdraw the related proceedings, or file any proceedings in the future over the accounts.
