Bombay High Court Flags Breach of Probate Stay in Bandra Property Dispute, Issues Contempt Notice
Introduction
In a significant reaffirmation of judicial authority and the binding nature of court orders, the Bombay High Court has found a prima facie case of contempt against Marina Manuel Fernandes for allegedly acting in violation of a subsisting stay on a probate granted in her favour. The case arises from a long-standing testamentary dispute concerning a valuable Bandra property, and underscores that any exercise of rights under a stayed probate amounts to contempt of court.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, sitting on the Original Side of the High Court, issued notice under Chapter VIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, returnable on January 7, 2026.
Factual Background of the Dispute
Grant and Stay of Probate
A probate was granted to Marina Manuel Fernandes on November 16, 2017, in respect of the estate of her deceased relative.
On February 6, 2023, the Bombay High Court:
Stayed the operation of the probate, and
Extended the stay to proceedings pending before the Deputy Collector, Suburban Division, Bandra.
The stay was passed during the pendency of a connected miscellaneous petition challenging the probate.
Awareness of the Stay Order
The Court recorded that:
Fernandes was represented by an advocate at the time the stay was granted.
Consequently, she had full knowledge of the subsisting judicial restraint on exercising any rights under the probate.
Acts Alleged to Constitute Contempt
Execution of Power of Attorney
Despite the stay order:
Fernandes executed a Power of Attorney on March 13, 2023, dealing with the Bandra property forming part of the deceased’s estate.
Transfer and Possession Documents
Pursuant to the Power of Attorney:
Fernandes executed a letter of possession in favour of M/s Track Homes Realities, a real estate firm.
The letter stated that the property had been “irrevocably sold and transferred”.
The petitioner contended that these acts amounted to a deliberate invocation of rights flowing exclusively from the stayed probate.
Key Judicial Findings of the Bombay High Court
No Independent Right Outside Probate
The Court categorically held that:
Fernandes had no independent title or right in the property.
Her authority, if any, flowed solely from the probate, which was under an express judicial stay.
Violation of the Stay Order
Justice Deshmukh observed:
“Despite thereof the respondent by execution of Power of Attorney and letter of possession has prima facie violated the order of 6th February, 2023 by exercising rights under the probate.”
Accordingly, the Court found that:
A prima facie case of civil contempt was made out.
Revocation of Probate on Grounds of Fraud
In a parallel and crucial development:
The Court revoked the probate granted to Fernandes by a separate order passed on the same day.
It held that the probate was obtained by:
Concealment of material facts, and
False statements made on oath.
This finding significantly aggravates the alleged contempt, as actions were taken not only during a subsisting stay, but under a probate later found to be legally tainted.
Contempt Proceedings Initiated
Issuance of Notice
The Court:
Directed issuance of notice to Fernandes under Chapter VIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.
Fixed January 7, 2026 as the returnable date.
Appointment of Amicus Curiae
Senior Advocate Aditya Mehta, already assisting the Court, was requested to continue as amicus curiae in the contempt proceedings.
Statutory Framework Involved
Indian Succession Act, 1925
Sections 222–227: Probate establishes the executor’s legal authority.
A stayed or revoked probate confers no enforceable rights.
Any action based on such probate is void and legally unsustainable.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2(b) defines civil contempt as:
“Wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court.”
Execution of property documents during a subsisting stay squarely falls within this definition.
Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules – Chapter VIII
Governs procedure for initiating contempt proceedings on the Original Side.
Empowers the Court to issue notice and examine whether disobedience was wilful.
Constitutional Provisions Implicated
Article 215 – Constitution of India
Recognises the High Court as a court of record.
Empowers it to punish for contempt of itself.
Reinforces the institutional authority of constitutional courts to ensure compliance with their orders.
Relevant Judicial Precedents
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (1997) 3 SCC 443
The Supreme Court held that:
Orders of a court must be obeyed unless set aside, even if alleged to be erroneous.
Parties cannot take advantage of self-perceived legal rights in defiance of court orders.
Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307
Wilful violation of court orders, even by indirect means, constitutes contempt.
Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh (1995) 6 SCC 50
Any act that tends to undermine the authority of the court interferes with the administration of justice and attracts contempt jurisdiction.
Legal Significance of the Order
This case reiterates critical principles:
Probate rights are strictly subject to judicial control
Stay orders operate in rem and bind all acts flowing from the stayed instrument
Real estate transactions during judicial restraint expose parties to serious legal consequences
Knowledge of a stay negates any defence of bona fide action
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s order serves as a stern reminder that judicial stays are not symbolic directives but enforceable commands. Any attempt to bypass or dilute them — especially in sensitive probate and property disputes — invites serious contempt consequences. The outcome of the proceedings scheduled for January 7, 2026, will be closely watched, particularly for its implications on estate litigation, probate misuse, and property transactions under judicial scrutiny.

Comments
Post a Comment