RAJEEV MAHENDRA MUNHET vs MAHENDRA PRATAP MUNHET — TP/2592/2026

Case under Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 372. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM020083882026

e-Filing Number

06-03-2026

Filing Number

TP/8388/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

TP/2592/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar

Coram

Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar

Bench Type

Single

Category

TESTAMENTARY ( 63 )

Sub-Category

Succession ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 372

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJEEV MAHENDRA MUNHET

    Adv. AAYUSH KEDIA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHENDRA PRATAP MUNHET

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary RegistrarView PDF

    Case TP/2592/2026 Summary: The Testamentary Registrar heard the petitioner's advocate and directed the office to issue notice to non-consenting legal heirs through the Sheriff, Mumbai. The petitioner must file an Affidavit of Service, effect service on non-consenting heirs, furnish an Administration Bond per the prescribed rules, and the office must verify if any cross petition exists. The case was adjourned for final grant upon completion of all compliance requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    For Direction

    Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. TP/2592/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case TP/2592/2026 Summary: The Testamentary Registrar heard the petitioner's advocate and directed the office to issue notice to non-consenting legal heirs through the Sheriff, Mumbai. The petitioner must file an Affidavit of Service, effect service on non-consenting heirs, furnish an Administration Bond per the prescribed rules, and the office must verify if any cross petition exists. The case was adjourned for final grant upon completion of all compliance requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case