Mandatory Interim Reliefs Cannot Be Granted In Administration Suit: Bombay High Court Declines Protective Orders In Estate Dispute

“A Commissioner’s Report Cannot Be Treated As Conclusive Evidence At An Interlocutory Stage”, Bombay High Court recently reiterated that findings recorded in a Commissioner’s Report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence at the interim stage and that courts must avoid granting substantially final relief while deciding interim applications.

Bombay High Court in an interim application arising out of an administration suit concerning the estate of late Adil Yusuf Nensey.

The Court declined to grant interim directions sought by the plaintiff, including making him a joint signatory to estate bank accounts, directing deposit of estate income in court, and restoration of allegedly withdrawn funds. The Court held that such directions were mandatory and near-final in nature, and therefore impermissible at the interlocutory stage.

The dispute arose out of the estate of late Adil Yusuf Nensey, a Shia Muslim who passed away intestate on 21 June 2016, leaving behind his wife (Defendant No.1) and two sons, including the plaintiff and Defendant No.2, as his legal heirs.

The deceased was associated with Nensey Poultry Farm Pvt. Ltd., a poultry farming company incorporated in 1991 with his brother. Following a family settlement in 2012, the shareholding was restructured, leaving the deceased and his immediate family as shareholders.

Shortly before his demise, both sons were appointed as Directors of the company, while the deceased had nominated his wife as nominee of his shareholding.

After the death of the deceased:

“the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 continued as Directors of the Company.”

The deceased also owned two commercial units at Wadala Udyog Bhavan, from which rental income was generated.

Disputes within the family escalated after the plaintiff married a Hindu woman in 2022, following which the plaintiff and his wife were restrained from entering the family residence by the Senior Citizens Tribunal, Bandra. The plaintiff alleged that thereafter he was excluded from the management of the company and from receiving rental income.

Under Shia law of inheritance, the plaintiff claimed entitlement to 43.75% share in the estate, and accordingly instituted a suit for administration of the estate in 2024.

The interim application sought several protective directions against the defendants on the apprehension that the estate of the deceased was being dissipated.

Reliance On Commissioner’s Report

A Commissioner had been appointed by consent of parties to examine the financial affairs of the estate and the company.

The plaintiff relied heavily on the Commissioner’s Report which noted cash withdrawals amounting to approximately ₹5.16 crore and questioned unexplained expenses.

However, the Court rejected the argument that the report could be treated as proof of wrongdoing at the interim stage.

The Court observed:

“At this interlocutory stage, the contents of the Commissioner’s Report cannot be treated as conclusive or as substantive evidence of wrongdoing.”

It emphasized that defendants must be allowed to challenge the report by cross-examining the Commissioner and leading independent evidence.

Justice Dubash further noted:

“To grant substantive or mandatory directions solely on the basis of the Report at this stage would amount to foreclosing the Defendants’ right to contest its contents.”

The Court relied on Anjuman Intezamia Masjid v. Rakhi Singh and Kolhapuri Bandu Lakade v. Yallappa Chinappa Lakade, reiterating that a Commissioner’s report does not by itself constitute substantive evidence.

Civil Court Cannot Interfere In Corporate Governance – NCLT Has Exclusive Jurisdiction

The plaintiff also raised grievances regarding alleged financial mismanagement in the company and questioned the transfer of shares in favour of Defendant No.1.

However, the Court clarified that such issues fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Justice Dubash held:

“In a suit for administration of the estate of the deceased, this Court cannot entertain or grant reliefs that fall within the exclusive domain of the NCLT.”

Relying on Invesco Developing Markets Fund v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. and Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Ltd., the Court held that disputes relating to corporate governance, oppression or mismanagement must be adjudicated by the NCLT.

Director Cannot Claim Ignorance Of Financial Affairs

Another important aspect considered by the Court was the plaintiff’s conduct as a Director of the company.

The Court noted that the plaintiff had signed financial statements for several years after the death of the deceased.

Justice Dubash observed:

“The Plaintiff, having signed and approved the financial statements in his capacity as Director, cannot at this stage feign ignorance of the manner in which the Company’s finances were recorded.”

The Court further noted that the shareholding pattern reflecting transfer of shares to Defendant No.1 had existed since at least 2017, and the plaintiff had continued as director for years without objection.

The Court held that the challenge raised nearly eight years later suffered from delay and acquiescence.

Mandatory Interim Reliefs Cannot Be Granted In Administration Suit

The Court also examined the nature of reliefs sought, particularly the prayers seeking:

• addition of the plaintiff as joint signatory to bank accounts
• deposit of estate income in court
• restoration of allegedly withdrawn monies

The Court held that these directions were effectively mandatory and substantially final in nature.

Justice Dubash explained:

“In a suit for administration, such directions would ordinarily follow only upon determination of the rights and shares of the parties and upon proper accounting.”

Granting such relief at the interim stage would amount to granting significant final relief without trial, which is impermissible.

Existing Interim Arrangement Adequately Protects Plaintiff

The Court also noted that an earlier ad-interim order dated 7 May 2024 already required the defendants to pay the plaintiff ₹3,00,000 per month.

The Court held that this arrangement sufficiently protected the plaintiff’s financial interests during the pendency of the suit.

Justice Dubash observed:

“No irreparable injury is demonstrated… If ultimately he succeeds in the suit, appropriate accounts can be directed to be taken and adjustments can be made.”

Decision Of The Court

The Bombay High Court ultimately refused the interim reliefs sought in prayer clauses (c), (f), and (g) of the application.

However, the Court recorded the statement of the defendants that they would not create third-party rights in the estate assets during the pendency of the suit.

The Court ordered that:

• The defendants’ undertaking not to create third-party rights in the estate would remain binding.
• The interim arrangement directing payment of ₹3,00,000 per month to the plaintiff would continue.
• Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to seek enhancement of the amount if circumstances require.

All observations made in the order were clarified to be prima facie, not affecting the final adjudication of the administration suit.

The judgment reiterates crucial procedural principles governing interim reliefs. The Bombay High Court made it clear that courts must avoid granting near-final mandatory relief at the interlocutory stage, particularly in administration suits where rights of parties require full adjudication and accounting.

The ruling also reinforces two important legal positions: a Commissioner’s report is not substantive evidence, and corporate governance disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT rather than civil courts.

Date of Decision: 05 March 2026