Bombay High Court removes executor for prolonged non‑compliance, appoints retired judge as administrator

A single‑judge bench of Justice Farhan P. Dubash heard an application under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act challenging the conduct of an executor and considered whether continued exercise of executorial functions would be detrimental to the estate and the beneficiaries. The dispute arose from long‑standing probate proceedings and repeated orders directing time‑bound distribution of the testator's estate.

The Court allowed the interim application and removed the executor for persistent failure to administer the estate, appointed a neutral administrator and issued time‑bound directions for handing over records and completing distribution. The Court emphasised that an executor occupied a fiduciary position and must carry the testator’s voice into effect: the judgment stated that an executor is “the living instrument of the deceased Testator’s final Will and stands in a fiduciary capacity, being entrusted with the sacred duty of ensuring that the voice of the Testator, though silenced by death, is carried into effect fully and in a timely manner.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “A plain reading of this section reveals that the Court is vested with a discretionary power to remove an Executor who has been named as such, by the Testator in the Will. … when a Court, upon consideration of all the relevant material placed before it, comes to a conclusion that the continued functioning of the Executor named under a Will would be detrimental to the estate or prejudicial to the interests of the beneficiaries, the Court is empowered and justified in exercising its authority to remove such Executor.” The bench further noted the executor’s “willful disregard of this Court’s directions” and found persistent non‑compliance and unexplained delay.

Background
The dispute concerned the estate of the late Rajnikant Ambalal Kilachand. The testator executed his last will on 27 March 1997 and died on 6 August 1997. Probate issued in favour of the testator’s elder son on 27 October 2016 after long litigation that began in 1999; the widow, Ramila, had earlier opposed probate. After probate, Ramila repeatedly alleged that the executor failed to administer and distribute the estate and sought court directions; the High Court issued time‑bound directions on 29 January 2025 directing distribution of movables within two months and immovables within six months and warned that default would render the executor liable to removal. Ramila died on 18 February 2024 before receiving her full legacy. Her son, the present applicant, pursued the pending proceedings as her legal heir and beneficiaries alleged gross misconduct and mismanagement by the executor.

The respondent‑executor filed a reply attributing delay to multiple factors including earlier caveats, alleged need for a family settlement, difficulties in share transmission and transfers to IEPF. The Court reviewed the record, found the family‑settlement precondition expressly rejected in the 29 January 2025 order, and held that the executor had failed to furnish adequate, sworn particulars or documentary evidence to justify the prolonged inaction. The Court declined to accept a belated status chart for lack of corroboration and held that the executor’s conduct amounted to breach of fiduciary duty and obstruction of due administration. Applying Section 301 of the Succession Act and relevant precedents, the Court removed the executor, appointed Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale (Retired Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court) as administrator, directed the outgoing executor to hand over records within one month and to file a full inventory affidavit within 21 days, and directed the administrator to distribute the pending estate “as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of six months” after receipt of records. The administrator may fix an honorarium payable from the estate. The application was disposed with no order as to costs. A request for an immediate stay of the order was refused.

Case Details:
Case No.: IAL. 12739 of 2025 (in IAL. 20213 of 2021; Notice of Motion No. 306 of 2017; Testamentary Petition No. 116 of 1999)
Case Title: Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand v. Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shanay Shah, Advocate; Mr. Hamza Lakhani, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhesh Bhole, Advocate; Mr. Apoorva Kulkarni, Advocate (i/b SSB Legal and Advisory)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 41