Executor Blamed Untransferred Shares, Defunct Companies and Family Obstruction; Bombay High Court Says Decade-Long Delay Justified Removal
Facts
Rajnikant Ambalal Kilachand executed his Will on 27 March 1997 and appointed his son, Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand, as its executor.
After prolonged proceedings, probate was granted in Harsh’s favour in 2016. However, the administration and distribution of the estate remained incomplete for almost ten years after the grant of probate.
The beneficiaries repeatedly complained that the executor had failed to distribute the estate and discharge his fiduciary obligations. An order dated 29 January 2025 gave the executor another opportunity to complete the administration within prescribed timelines. Harsh did not challenge that order, and it consequently attained finality.
When the directions remained uncomplied with, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 18 February 2026, removed Harsh as executor under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The Single Judge appointed Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale, former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, as administrator of the estate and directed Harsh to hand over the estate records and submit a full inventory. The administrator was asked to complete the pending distribution, preferably within six months.
Harsh filed the present appeal challenging his removal.
Issues
- Whether the prolonged failure to distribute the estate justified removal of the executor under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act.
- Whether the delay was attributable to misconduct or neglect by the executor, or to external circumstances beyond his control.
- Whether partial distribution of the estate was sufficient to protect the executor from removal.
- Whether non-compliance with the unchallenged order dated 29 January 2025 constituted an independent ground for removal.
- Whether the beneficiaries’ loss of trust, combined with the prolonged delay, justified replacing the executor with a court-appointed administrator.
- Whether the Single Judge’s removal order was arbitrary, disproportionate or perverse, warranting appellate interference.
Appellant’s Arguments
- The principal reason for the delay was the obstructive conduct of the respondent.
- Even after probate was granted, several criminal proceedings were instituted against the appellant alleging breach of trust and siphoning of estate assets.
- A substantial portion of the estate had already been distributed, as demonstrated by the statement of payments and status of assets filed with his affidavit dated 13 January 2026.
- The undistributed estate consisted mainly of assets that were beyond his control.
- Some companies or third parties had refused to transfer the relevant shares.
- Certain shares could not be transmitted because his mother, Ramila Kilachand, allegedly failed for seven years to hand over dividend warrants required for encashment.
- Several companies whose shares formed part of the estate had been struck off, liquidated or rendered defunct, making transmission impossible.
- Some residual assets belonged to the estate of Ambalal Kilachand and had never been received by the appellant. He therefore could not distribute them.
- The appellant had filed his own interim application seeking directions against the companies and their Registrars and Share Transfer Agents to complete the transmission.
- He had also sought modification of the 29 January 2025 order to remove legal impediments affecting assets that had not yet been received.
- Transfer of certain shares to Vedika Amrish Kilachand could not be completed because of a technical glitch.
- The failure to complete distribution was not deliberate, dishonest or negligent and therefore did not amount to gross misconduct.
- The explanations were supported by contemporaneous documents and should not have been rejected as bare assertions.
- If the pleadings were considered insufficient, the Court should have permitted him to file a supplementary affidavit instead of removing him.
- The Single Judge incorrectly distinguished the judgments in Dr. Subhada Mithilesh v. Prabhakar Deolankar and Bagchi v. Hrishikesh Sanyal.
- The 29 January 2025 order did not provide for automatic removal upon non-compliance. The appellant was entitled to explain the circumstances before such a drastic order was passed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent relied upon the findings recorded by the Single Judge and argued that this was a clear case for removal of the executor.
The respondent’s position was that:
- The executor had failed to complete the estate’s administration despite repeated opportunities.
- The delay continued for almost ten years after probate was granted.
- The executor failed to comply with the binding directions contained in the 29 January 2025 order.
- The explanations advanced for retaining the assets had already been examined and rejected.
- The beneficiaries had lost confidence in the executor.
- Continued administration by the appellant would further delay the beneficiaries’ receipt of their inheritance.
Analysis of the Law
Executor’s fiduciary obligations
An executor occupies a fiduciary position and must administer the estate honestly, diligently and within a reasonable period.
Being specifically appointed by the testator does not grant the executor an indefinite or unconditional right to continue. The executor’s authority exists for the purpose of implementing the Will and distributing the estate to the beneficiaries.
Power under Section 301
Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act empowers the High Court to suspend, remove or discharge a private executor or administrator and appoint a successor.
The power is discretionary and may be exercised where clear material shows:
- Gross misconduct;
- Mismanagement of the estate;
- Breach of fiduciary obligations;
- Obstruction of administration;
- Conduct detrimental to the estate; or
- Conduct frustrating the proper execution of the Will.
Mere disagreement or unsupported allegations of loss of confidence may not be sufficient. However, prolonged delay, repeated non-compliance and continuing prejudice to beneficiaries can justify removal.
Effect of prolonged non-distribution
The Division Bench treated the near ten-year delay after probate as highly significant. Even if some delay before probate could be explained by pending litigation, the appellant was required to act promptly after probate was granted.
Partial distribution did not answer the central problem that the estate remained substantially unadministered and the beneficiaries had not received their complete entitlements.
Effect of the 2025 order
The order dated 29 January 2025 gave the executor another opportunity to complete distribution within fixed timelines. That order was never challenged and had become final.
Failure to comply with a binding and final order demonstrated that granting further opportunities was unlikely to achieve the necessary distribution.
Appellate interference
The Division Bench examined whether the Single Judge’s decision was arbitrary, perverse or unsupported by the record.
It found that the Single Judge had considered the pleadings, documents, explanations and precedents before exercising the power under Section 301. Therefore, the order did not warrant appellate interference.
Precedent Analysis
- Dr. Subhada Mithilesh v. Prabhakar Deolankar, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21424
This decision held that an executor appointed by the testator should not be removed merely because some beneficiaries allege loss of confidence.
There must be clear and cogent material demonstrating that the executor’s continuation would be detrimental to the estate or frustrate proper execution of the Will. The earlier decision emphasised that unsubstantiated loss of confidence is insufficient.
Harsh relied upon this principle to contend that his removal was unjustified.
The Court distinguished the precedent because the present case contained objective material beyond mere allegations: almost ten years of incomplete distribution, non-compliance with a final court order, insufficient steps and continuing prejudice to the beneficiaries.
The precedent therefore did not assist the appellant. On the contrary, the Court found that the factual requirements laid down in Dr. Subhada Mithilesh were satisfied.
- Bagchi v. Hrishikesh Sanyal, 1948 SCC OnLine All 253
The Allahabad High Court held that recourse to Section 301 would not ordinarily arise where the executor had duly performed the obligations imposed upon him under the Will.
Harsh relied upon this decision to argue that removal should be reserved for clear misconduct and not ordered merely because some assets remained undistributed.
The Court held that the case was factually distinguishable. Harsh had not completed the administration of the estate and had failed to discharge the duties expected of him.
The principle protecting an executor who had properly performed his duties could not protect an executor whose administration remained incomplete despite repeated opportunities. The Single Judge’s treatment of both precedents was specifically upheld by the Division Bench.
Court’s Reasoning
- The attempts to delay distribution were not confined to the period before probate but continued after probate was granted in 2016.
- Almost ten years had passed since probate, yet the estate remained incompletely distributed.
- An estate remaining undistributed for such a prolonged period was itself sufficient to justify removal.
- Whatever steps the appellant claimed to have taken were insufficient because they did not result in complete distribution.
- The appellant had received several opportunities from the Court but failed to complete the administration.
- The 29 January 2025 order was not challenged and had attained finality.
- The appellant admittedly failed to comply with that order.
- Most importantly, the beneficiaries no longer trusted the executor.
- There was no justification for allowing the appellant to continue indefinitely while the beneficiaries remained deprived of their inheritance.
- It was just and equitable to allow the court-appointed administrator to complete the distribution within the timeframe fixed by the Single Judge.
- The authorities cited by the appellant did not create a rigid formula applicable in every case.
- The Single Judge had correctly distinguished those decisions on facts.
- The removal order was reasoned, neither arbitrary nor perverse, and required no appellate interference.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court upheld Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand’s removal as executor of his late father’s Will.
The Division Bench held that the prolonged failure to complete the distribution, non-compliance with the unchallenged 2025 order and loss of confidence among the beneficiaries justified the exercise of power under Section 301.
The Court consequently:
- Dismissed the appeal;
- Refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s removal order;
- Allowed the court-appointed administrator to continue and complete the estate’s distribution;
- Disposed of the connected interim application as no longer surviving; and
- Made no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case: Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand v. Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Case Number: Appeal No. 96 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 3321 of 2026
CNR Number: HCBM020084052026
Judges: Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata
Judgment authored by: Justice Kamal Khata
Reserved on: 23 June 2026
Pronounced on: 22 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed. Removal of the appellant as executor upheld; interim application disposed of; no order as to costs
