MUMBAI, Feb. 20 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday removed businessman Harsh Kilachand as the executor of his late father Rajnikant Kilachand's will, and appointed retired Allahabad High Court chief justice Dilip Bhosale to administer and distribute the estate of one of the city's wealthiest business families. A single judge bench of justice Farhan Dubhash held that Harsh Kilachand had completely failed to administer and distribute the family's estate in accordance with the will. It also noted that his late mother, Ramila Kilachand, who is one of the three main beneficiaries under the will, was deprived of her share in the estate as a result. Ramila passed away in 2024. "The facts of this case reveal a rather disturbing position wherein the respondent (Harsh Kilachand), acting as the executor, has failed to ensure and complete distribution and administration of the estate of the testator in accordance with the will, resulting in his own mother, Ramila, who was one of the three main beneficiaries being deprived of the full legacy and rightful entitlement that was bequeathed to her from her late husband's estate," the court said. The court has ordered Harsh to furnish a complete inventory of the entire estate to the administrator. Justice Bhosale has been asked to complete the distribution of movable and immovable assets within six months of receiving the documents. The court passed the order on a plea filed by Harsh's younger brother, Amrish Kilachand, who is also a beneficiary under the will. The plea sought Harsh's removal as the executor of his late father's will on the grounds of "gross misconduct and mismanagement of the estate". Rajnikant Kilachand died on August 6, 1997, leaving behind a will dated March 27, 1997. The bulk of his estate was bequeathed to his wife Ramila and two sons, Harsh and Amrish. Harsh was named as the sole executor of the will. In January 1999, Harsh filed a petition in the high court, seeking probate (or validation) of the will. However, disputes among family members led to the petition being converted into a testamentary suit, which is filed to determine the validity of a deceased person's will. Eventually, in October 2016, the court probated the will. The following year, however, Ramila Kilachand filed a plea in the high court, alleging that despite the grant of probate, Harsh had failed to administer the family estate. She also claimed that she was deprived of her legacy under the will and, therefore, sought a direction for expeditious completion of the estate's distribution. Ramila filed another plea in 2021, alleging that Harsh had not only failed to administer and distribute the estate in accordance with the will, but also failed to comply with court orders passed on her earlier plea. She eventually passed away on February 18, 2024, during the pendency of the plea, without receiving the benefits under her late husband's will. After his mother's death, Amrish stepped into her shoes as her legal heir. Acting on his plea, the court in January 2025 recorded a categoric finding that Harsh was guilty of defying his duties as an executor. However, instead of removing him as executor, the court granted him an opportunity-it ordered him to complete the distribution of movable assets and securities within two months and immovable assets within six months. Amrish, however, claimed that his elder brother had failed to fulfil his obligations despite repeated reminders, prompting him to approach the high court again for his removal and the distribution of the family estate. Harsh contested the plea, citing several reasons and grounds for the delay in execution and compliance with the earlier court orders. However, Harsh's arguments failed to impress upon justice Dubhash. The bench on Wednesday allowed Amrish's plea due to Harsh's "persistent non-compliance and indifference to his fiduciary duties". It said that the prolonged and unexplained inaction on his part amounted to "a clear failure to discharge the fiduciary obligations of an executor". It added that Harsh's continuous non-compliance with the court's January 2025 order demonstrated a "wilful disregard" of its directions. The bench also noted that the high court had given Harsh two more opportunities, but he "stood steadfast, both in his attitude and approach, which reveals total disregard to his fiduciary duties" as the executor of the will. "In these circumstances, I refuse to be a mute spectator and stand by, allowing the respondent to administer the estate, as per his own whims and fancies," the judge said....