Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a condition requiring two brothers to furnish a ₹2.25 crore security bond for obtaining a succession certificate, holding that such a condition cannot be imposed mechanically without recording reasons
Justice Sudesh Bansal, in a reportable judgment, allowed the writ petition filed by Ajay Sarin and Sanjay Sarin, sons and only surviving legal heirs of late Ashwani Kumar Sarin, and set aside the District Judge’s order refusing to remove the security-bond condition.
Dispute Over MRF Shares Worth ₹2.20 CroreThe petitioners had approached the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, seeking a succession certificate for shares of MRF Limited held in their late father’s name. The shares, including dividends, were valued at approximately ₹2.20 crore.
The District Judge granted the succession certificate in January 2025 but imposed a condition requiring the brothers to furnish a ₹2.25 crore commitment bond and an equal security bond, undertaking to repay the amount with 9% annual interest if any other claimant subsequently established a right over the property.
The brothers challenged the condition, contending that furnishing such a huge security was onerous
No Rival Claimant, No Reasoned Basis for Security
The High Court noted that no rival claimant had appeared before the District Judge and that the court had already recorded a finding that the petitioners were the only surviving natural successors of the deceased.
The court further observed that neither the original order dated January 24, 2025 nor the subsequent order dated March 16, 2026 contained any justification or reasons for imposing or retaining the ₹2.25 crore security condition.
“Security Requirement Cannot Be Routine”
Relying on precedents of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, the Court held that the power under Section 375 is discretionary and that courts must consider the facts of each case before requiring security.
The Court emphasised that a mechanical approach of insisting upon security in every succession-certificate matter is not warranted. Where security is considered necessary, the court must record appropriate reasons for imposing the condition.
Indemnity Bond Accepted Instead
The petitioners expressed willingness to furnish an indemnity bond for ₹2.25 crore, along with the written undertaking already directed by the District Judge.
Accepting this alternative, the High Court directed that the succession certificate be issued on furnishing the ₹2.25 crore joint indemnity bond and commitment bond, and clarified that the petitioners need not furnish the security bond.
The Court consequently allowed the writ petition and quashed the March 16, 2026 order of the District Judge.