VEENA NITIN BHATT (PLAINTIFF) vs MEETA KANU PARMAR (DEFENDANT) Advocate - Rekha P Safari — TS/140/2026
Case under Indian Succession Act Section 31. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM020133122026
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
TS/13312/2026
Filing Date
16-04-2026
Registration No
TS/140/2026
Registration Date
16-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Bench Type
Single
Category
PERSONAL LAW ( 31 )
Sub-Category
FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WITH WILL ( 6 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VEENA NITIN BHATT (PLAINTIFF)
Adv. Bishwajeet Mukherjee
Respondent(s)
MEETA KANU PARMAR (DEFENDANT) Advocate - Rekha P Safari
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
FOR FRAMING ISSUES
FIRST ON BOARD (FOB)
FIRST ON BOARD (FOB)
FIRST ON BOARD (FOB)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | FOR FRAMING ISSUES |
| 09-06-2026 | FIRST ON BOARD (FOB) |
| 04-05-2026 | FIRST ON BOARD (FOB) |
| 30-04-2026 | FIRST ON BOARD (FOB) |
Orders
Case Summary: TS/140/2026 Veena Nitin Bhatt v. Meeta Kanu Parmar (Bombay High Court, May 4, 2026) The court framed four issues for adjudication in this testamentary suit concerning a Will dated April 1, 2021. The plaintiff must prove valid execution and the testator's sound mind; the defendant challenges the Will's validity alleging forgery, fraud, or undue influence. The court adjourned the case to June 9, 2026, and directed procedural compliance including affidavits and document exchange. Notably, the court requested the two sisters to settle by dividing the deceased father's estate equally (50% each) or through court-appointed mediation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: TS/140/2026 Veena Nitin Bhatt v. Meeta Kanu Parmar (Bombay High Court, May 4, 2026) The court framed four issues for adjudication in this testamentary suit concerning a Will dated April 1, 2021. The plaintiff must prove valid execution and the testator's sound mind; the defendant challenges the Will's validity alleging forgery, fraud, or undue influence. The court adjourned the case to June 9, 2026, and directed procedural compliance including affidavits and document exchange. Notably, the court requested the two sisters to settle by dividing the deceased father's estate equally (50% each) or through court-appointed mediation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts