RUMA MADAN KOLEY vs MADAN GADADHAR KOLEY DECEASED — JOT/228/2024

Case under Indian Succession Act Section 278. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OFF on 25th March 2025.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020202492024

e-Filing Number

28-06-2024

Filing Number

JOT/20243/2024

Filing Date

29-Jun-2024

Registration No

JOT/228/2024

Registration Date

24-Dec-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Shri Arif S. Doctor

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Shri Arif S. Doctor

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

25-Mar-2025

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Succession Act Section 278

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RUMA MADAN KOLEY

    Adv. PRAKASH DUBE AND ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MADAN GADADHAR KOLEY DECEASED

  2. 2.BIMAL GADADHAR KOLEY DECEASED

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind N. JadhavView PDF

    In this testamentary petition, the Bombay High Court directed Union Bank of India to forcibly open locker No. A-GA484 after the petitioner Ruma Madan Koley misplaced the keys, to enable inventory as previously ordered. The court mandated that an appropriate inventory be conducted and submitted to the Department for further action, with all expenses for breaking open the locker to be borne by the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Shri Arif S. DoctorView PDF

  4. 25-Mar-2025

    Judges Order

    Hon'ble Justice Shri Arif S. Doctor

  5. 29-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. JOT/228/2024

casestatus.in Summary

In this testamentary petition, the Bombay High Court directed Union Bank of India to forcibly open locker No. A-GA484 after the petitioner Ruma Madan Koley misplaced the keys, to enable inventory as previously ordered. The court mandated that an appropriate inventory be conducted and submitted to the Department for further action, with all expenses for breaking open the locker to be borne by the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case