Estate preservation and company liability for a deceased claimant's deposit may be pursued independently of pending probate.

A company forum may examine whether an alleged deposit held by a company must be refunded or safeguarded even while probate proceedings remain pending, because the company's liability to account for and protect the asset is distinct from the probate court's task of identifying the eventual heir. The possibility of dissipation justified immediate consideration of the deposit-related relief. A claimant to the deceased's estate may also continue proceedings to preserve the estate pending probate, since the absence of final heirship does not bar protective action. The matter was remitted for adjudication on merits, including independent determination of the alleged deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the National Company Law Tribunal should examine the alleged deposit and its repayment or safe keeping without awaiting final determination of the probate proceedings; (ii) Whether a claimant to the deceased's estate could prosecute proceedings to protect the estate pending probate.

Issue (i): Whether the National Company Law Tribunal should examine the alleged deposit and its repayment or safe keeping without awaiting final determination of the probate proceedings.

Analysis: The controversy before the Tribunal was confined to the alleged deposit made by the deceased petitioner, the amount lying with the company, the interest accrued, and whether the company could continue to retain it in the face of the obligations under Section 73(4) and Section 74(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. That question was held to fall within the jurisdiction of the company forum and not within the probate court's domain, because the probate proceedings were concerned only with identification of the person entitled to inherit the asset, not with the company's liability to account for or safeguard the deposit. The possibility of the asset being dissipated was treated as a relevant ground for immediate consideration by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of permitting the Tribunal to decide the deposit-related relief on its own merits without waiting for the probate result.

Issue (ii): Whether a claimant to the deceased's estate could prosecute proceedings to protect the estate pending probate.

Analysis: The competing claimants to the deceased's estate were already before the company forum, and the absence of a concluded substitution did not bar either claimant from pursuing protection of the estate. Reliance was placed on the principle that a beneficiary's right to institute proceedings for preservation of the estate is not defeated merely because probate is still pending and no final legal heir has been declared. On that basis, continuation of the company proceeding was treated as permissible so that the alleged asset could be safeguarded until the succession dispute is finally determined.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of allowing the claimants to proceed before the Tribunal for protection of the estate.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication of the interlocutory application and the main proceeding on merits, with liberty to decide the fate of the alleged deposit independently of the pending probate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A company forum may determine liability to refund and safeguard a deposit belonging to a deceased claimant's estate even while probate is pending, because preservation of the estate and identification of the ultimate heir are distinct questions.

---