Abhay Krishnakumar Agarwal v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal (Deceased)

P11. TP-1150-25.docx Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION PETITION NO. 1150 OF 2025 Krishna Kumar Agarwal .. Deceased Abhay Krishnakumar Agarwal .. Petitioner ....................

 Ms. S. Mehta i/by Mr. Akshay Pawar, Advocates for Petitioner ...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 7, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Not on board. Mentioned by way of filing a praecipe dated 07.11.2025.

2.

Heard Ms. Mehta, learned Advocate for Petitioner. 3.

By order dated 01.03.2024, objection regarding surety stood dispensed with by this Court (Coram : Manish Pitale, J.). Subsequent thereto Administration Bond was filed by Petitioner wherein amount of surety was mentioned incorrectly as Rs. 4.20 Crores instead of Rs. 4.24 Crores. Secondly surety happened to be from Thane. 4.

Department by its requisition dated 16.10.2025 has directed the Petitioner to execute a fresh Administration Bond of the correct amount and upload the same. Earlier Administration Bond is duly filed and uploaded on the website.

P11. TP-1150-25.docx 5.

In view of the exigency mentioned in the praecipe dated 07.11.2025 and order dated 01.03.2024, Administration Bond filed by Petitioner for the sum of Rs. 4.20 Crores is directed to be accepted for determination of the Petition and issuance of grant. 6.

Equally I am informed that Advocate for Petitioner was informed orally that since surety happened to be from Thane, the surety was required to be from Mumbai. Though there is no written order to that effect, however in view of the fact that learned Advocate has persuaded the Court to consider the grievance, said requisition also stands dispensed with. Department shall not insist for the surety from Mumbai and accept the surety from Thane as submitted. 7.

Praecipe is allowed and disposed.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date:

2025.11.07 15:04:50 +0530 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR