TEJ PRATAP VELKAR vs LATE PRATAP MOTIRAM VELKAR — TP/1669/2026

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

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM020086982026

e-Filing Number

09-03-2026

Filing Number

TP/8697/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

TP/1669/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-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 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 372

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TEJ PRATAP VELKAR

    Adv. Prayag Bharat Joshi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LATE PRATAP MOTIRAM VELKAR

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Apr-2026

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

    Summary: This testamentary petition (35 TP/1669/2026) was called for direction before the Company/Testamentary Registrar on 9th April 2026. The Court directed the office to issue notices to non-consenting legal heirs through the Sheriff's office, and the advocate must file an affidavit of service, effect proper service, and furnish an Administration Bond as per Bombay High Court Rules. The matter is adjourned pending compliance with procedural requirements and verification of any cross-petitions, with liberty to re-list for final grant after all formalities are completed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    For Direction

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

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. TP/1669/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This testamentary petition (35 TP/1669/2026) was called for direction before the Company/Testamentary Registrar on 9th April 2026. The Court directed the office to issue notices to non-consenting legal heirs through the Sheriff's office, and the advocate must file an affidavit of service, effect proper service, and furnish an Administration Bond as per Bombay High Court Rules. The matter is adjourned pending compliance with procedural requirements and verification of any cross-petitions, with liberty to re-list for final grant after all formalities are completed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case