Yogesh Krishnakant Shroff vs Vinod Nagindas Shah alias Vinodray Nagindas Shah alias Vinodrai Nagindas Shah alias Vinodchandra Nag — TP/2612/2026

Case under Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 276. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCBM020149462026

e-Filing Number

23-04-2026

Filing Number

TP/14946/2026

Filing Date

24-Apr-2026

Registration No

TP/2612/2026

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

Probate ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 276

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Yogesh Krishnakant Shroff

    Adv. Agnes Baradia

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vinod Nagindas Shah alias Vinodray Nagindas Shah alias Vinodrai Nagindas Shah alias Vinodchandra Nag

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: TP/2612/2026 On 9th June 2026, the Bombay High Court (Testamentary Registrar) called the testamentary petition for directions. The court directed the office to issue citation and notice to the Collector, and ordered the petitioner's advocate to file an affidavit of service and effect service on non-consenting legal heirs through the Sheriff's office. The court also directed verification of any cross petitions. The case was adjourned with liberty to list after all compliance requirements are fulfilled and parties are ready for final grant. 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. 24-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. TP/2612/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: TP/2612/2026 On 9th June 2026, the Bombay High Court (Testamentary Registrar) called the testamentary petition for directions. The court directed the office to issue citation and notice to the Collector, and ordered the petitioner's advocate to file an affidavit of service and effect service on non-consenting legal heirs through the Sheriff's office. The court also directed verification of any cross petitions. The case was adjourned with liberty to list after all compliance requirements are fulfilled and parties are ready for final grant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case