In a scathing judgment highlighting prolonged delays and defiance of court orders, the Bombay High Court has removed Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand as the executor of his late father Rajnikant Ambalal Kilachand’s will, ending his nearly decade-long control over the family’s substantial estate.
Rajnikant Kilachand, a prominent figure from one of Mumbai’s historic business families with roots in cotton, oilseeds, and industry (linked to legacy entities like Kesar Enterprises), passed away on August 6, 1997. His 1997 will named elder son Harsh as executor, tasking him with collecting assets, settling any obligations, and distributing them to beneficiaries—including widow Ramila Rajnikant Kilachand, younger son Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand, Harsh himself, and possibly others.
Probate (court validation of the will) was finally granted on October 27, 2016, after years of litigation including caveats by Ramila. From that point, Harsh was legally bound to administer and distribute the estate expeditiously. Yet, as the February 18, 2026, order by Justice Farhan P. Dubash notes, nearly a decade later, significant portions of the estate—movables like shares, securities, cash, and immovables such as properties—remained undistributed.
The delay exacted a heavy personal toll. Ramila, a key beneficiary, repeatedly urged her son Harsh to act, filing applications in 2017 (Notice of Motion No. 306 of 2017) and 2021 (Interim Application (L) No. 20213 of 2021) alleging inaction deprived her of her rightful legacy. Despite court directions—including a 2019 order routing dividends to her account—Harsh failed to complete administration during her lifetime. Ramila passed away on February 18, 2024, still awaiting full entitlement under her husband’s will.
After her death, Amrish stepped in as her heir and beneficiary (also executor under Ramila’s own will). In a January 29, 2025, order, the court explicitly found Harsh guilty of defying his executor duties and probate obligations but granted him one final opportunity: distribute movables within two months and immovables within six months, with removal threatened for non-compliance.
That order became final and binding (unchallenged). Deadlines expired—March 29, 2025, for movables and July 29, 2025, for immovables—without full compliance. Harsh cited old excuses already rejected by the court, notably insisting on a Memorandum of Family Settlement (with indemnities and account acceptance) as a precondition—deemed illegal and contrary to his fiduciary role under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The court dismissed Harsh’s justifications as vague, unsupported by sworn details or documents, and sometimes absent from his affidavit. It described his conduct as willful disregard of judicial directions, breach of sacred fiduciary duty, and an attempt to mislead the court. The prolonged inaction rendered the will “nugatory” for beneficiaries and caused “grave and irreparable prejudice,” especially to Ramila, who waited eight years post-probate before her death.
Invoking Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Justice Dubash exercised discretion to remove Harsh immediately, stating his continuance would be detrimental to the estate and frustrate the testator’s intent. The judge emphasized that an executor is the “living instrument” of the deceased’s wishes, admitting no personal discretion inconsistent with the will.
In his place, retired Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale (former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice) has been appointed independent administrator. Harsh must hand over all records within one month, file a sworn inventory and accounts within 21 days, and the new administrator is directed to complete distribution “as expeditiously as possible,” preferably within six months of receiving documents.
The court rejected Harsh’s plea for a stay, noting timelines allow for appeal if desired.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s resolve to enforce timely estate administration, particularly where family disputes and executor inaction cause lasting harm to elderly beneficiaries.
Also Read: Developer’s Accounts Frozen for Failure to Pay Allottees, Tribunal Rejects Plea to Unfreeze
