Full Text
Translation output
s
A-20
% 19.07.2011
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M)No. 275/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
20.01.2010 wherein the application filed by the petitioner seeking correction in the
A-20
% 19.07.2011
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M)No. 275/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
20.01.2010 wherein the application filed by the petitioner seeking correction in the
JUDGMENT
dated 13.11.2003 vide which probate had been granted to him of the Will of his deceased father had omitted certain shares which already found mentioned in the probate petition. Attention has been drawn to the probate petition.
It is pointed out that in the list of moveable properties left of the deceased father of the petitioner, the 220 shares of Britannia
Industries Limited, 2816 shares of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., 168 shares of Ispat Alloys Limited, 350 shares of Larsen & Toubro
Limited, 100 shares of the Tata Engineering, 72 shares of Shriram
Industrial Enterprises, 71 shares of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and 100 shares of Oswal Chemicals & Eertilizers Ltd. mentioned at serial Nos. 16, 18, 28, 30, 39, 40,41 & 46 although found mention in the probate petition but due to oversight learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of submitting the schedule had omitted to mention these shares and that is why while granting the probate vide judgment dated 13.11.2003, these shares had been excluded.
An application had been filed seeking rectification and correction
2011:DHC:7761 r s b in thejudgment dated 13.11.2003 which has been dismissed hflhe impugned order dated 22.01.2010. The impugned order had dismissed the application primarily for the reason that the application has been filed belatedly and although it was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay yet the only ground mentioned in the application was that the petitioner was residing in the United Kingdom which is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
There was admittedly no objection to this petition; the petitioner was the sole legal heir of his deceased father. On advance notice learned counsel for the State has put an appearance. This factual position is correct. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner which is home out from the record, the shares as aforenoted at serial Nos.
16, 18,28, 30, 39,40,41 & 46 as mentioned in the probate petition will be read as part of the judgment delivered in the probate petition on 13.11.2003.
Withthesedirections,thispetitionisdisposed of.j
Ir^
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
JULY 19, 2011 a
2011:DHC:7761
It is pointed out that in the list of moveable properties left of the deceased father of the petitioner, the 220 shares of Britannia
Industries Limited, 2816 shares of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., 168 shares of Ispat Alloys Limited, 350 shares of Larsen & Toubro
Limited, 100 shares of the Tata Engineering, 72 shares of Shriram
Industrial Enterprises, 71 shares of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and 100 shares of Oswal Chemicals & Eertilizers Ltd. mentioned at serial Nos. 16, 18, 28, 30, 39, 40,41 & 46 although found mention in the probate petition but due to oversight learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of submitting the schedule had omitted to mention these shares and that is why while granting the probate vide judgment dated 13.11.2003, these shares had been excluded.
An application had been filed seeking rectification and correction
2011:DHC:7761 r s b in thejudgment dated 13.11.2003 which has been dismissed hflhe impugned order dated 22.01.2010. The impugned order had dismissed the application primarily for the reason that the application has been filed belatedly and although it was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay yet the only ground mentioned in the application was that the petitioner was residing in the United Kingdom which is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
There was admittedly no objection to this petition; the petitioner was the sole legal heir of his deceased father. On advance notice learned counsel for the State has put an appearance. This factual position is correct. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner which is home out from the record, the shares as aforenoted at serial Nos.
16, 18,28, 30, 39,40,41 & 46 as mentioned in the probate petition will be read as part of the judgment delivered in the probate petition on 13.11.2003.
Withthesedirections,thispetitionisdisposed of.j
Ir^
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
JULY 19, 2011 a
2011:DHC:7761