MUMBAI, July 24 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld the removal of businessman Harsh Kilachand as the executor of his late father Rajnikant Kilachand's Will and confirmed the appointment of retired Allahabad High Court chief justice Dilip Bhosale to administer and distribute the estate of the Kilachand family, one of Mumbai's wealthiest business families. A division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata dismissed Harsh's appeal against a February 18, 2026 order by a single-judge bench headed by justice Farhan Dubhash, which had removed him as executor of the Will and appointed justice Bhosale to oversee the distribution of the family estate. Justice Dubhash had held that Harsh had "completely failed" to administer and distribute the estate in accordance with his late father's wishes. The court observed that the delay had deprived Harsh's mother, Ramila Kilachand, one of the three main beneficiaries under the Will, of her rightful share. The single-judge bench had also directed Harsh to hand over a complete inventory of the estate to justice Bhosale, who was asked to distribute the movable and immovable assets among the beneficiaries within six months of receiving all the details. The order came on a petition filed by Harsh's younger brother Amrish Kilachand, another beneficiary under the Will, who sought Harsh's removal as executor alleging "gross misconduct and mismanagement" of the estate. Justice Dubhash had ruled that Harsh's prolonged and unexplained inaction amounted to "a clear failure to discharge the fiduciary obligations of an executor". The court also noted his continued non-compliance with an earlier HC order dated January 29, 2025, calling it a "wilful disregard" of the court's directions and saying it could not remain "a mute spectator". Rajnikant Kilachand died on August 6, 1997, leaving behind a Will dated March 27, 1997. Under the Will, most of his estate was bequeathed to his wife Ramila and sons Harsh and Amrish, while Harsh was appointed the sole executor. In his appeal, Harsh argued that the delay in distributing the estate was mainly due to the conduct of his brother Amrish, who, he claimed, had filed several criminal cases accusing him of siphoning off estate assets. His counsel also contended that a substantial part of the estate had already been distributed and that the single judge had wrongly dismissed these explanations as "bare assertions". The division bench, however, rejected the arguments, observing that the estate had remained undistributed for over a decade and that this, by itself, was enough to justify Harsh's removal as executor. The bench also noted that the other beneficiaries had lost confidence in Harsh and held that it was "just and equitable" to appoint justice Bhosale....