Delhi High Court - Orders
The Meeto And Kamla Bhasin Feminist ... vs Hdfc Bank Limited & Ors on 20 March, 2026
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 199/2026
THE MEETO AND KAMLA BHASIN FEMINIST FOUNDATION
M KBFF .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sumit Chander, Mr. Gurdeep
Chauhan, Ms. Selva Kumari and Mr.
Adarsh Pratap Singh, Advs.
versus
HDFC BANK LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Ms. Shimpy Arman, Adv. for D-1.
Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv. for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 20.03.2026 I.A. 6094/2026 (under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original/certified copies)
1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified/original copies of documents. Original documents shall be produced/filed, if sought, strictly as per the provisions of DHC (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 199/2026 IPA No. __________(to be numbered) I.A. 6814/2026 (by plaintiff/petitioner under Order XXXIII Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC)
4. The plaint was originally filed as a suit and has been numbered accordingly.
5. However, subsequently the above noted I.A. has been filed stating This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:03:54 that the applicant does not have funds to pay the Court fee. Prayer has been made to allow the plaintiff/petitioner to continue and proceed with the present suit as an indigent person seeking exemption from payment of ad valorem Court fee of Rs.29,30,344/-.
6. The suit has not been registered nor summons have been issued.
7. In view of the reasons articulated in IA 6814/2026, the same is allowed. The suit is converted into an IPA.
8. Let IPA be registered and numbered.
9. Issue notice to the respondents.
10. Ms. Shimpy Arman, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 accept notice.
11. On petitioner taking steps, notice be issued to the respondent no. 2 by all permissible modes.
12. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks.
13. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
14. The learned Joint Registrar is directed to conduct an inquiry in terms of Order XXXIII Rule 1A CPC. List before the learned Joint Registrar for the said purpose on 13.07.2026.
15. List before the Court after conclusion of inquiry on a date to be assigned by the learned Joint Registrar.
I.A. 6093/2026 (by plaintiff/petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC)
16. The present suit has been filed seeking the following prayers:
"1. Pass a decree of declaration declaring that Plaintiff No. 1 -
The Meeto and Kamla Bhasin Feminist Foundation - is the rightful beneficiary of Rs.30,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Crores only) as bequeathed to it by the registered Last Will This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:03:54 and Testament dated 31.08.2021 executed by Late Ms. Kamla Bhasin and is entitled to receive the same from the estate assets including the securities held in Demat Account Client ID 60955699, DP ID IN301549.
2. Pass a decree of declaration declaring that the Plaintiff is entitled to the transfer of securities valued at approximately Rs.30,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Crores only) held with Defendant No. 1 (HDFC Bank Limited) in Demat Account Client ID 60955699, DP ID IN301549 by virtue of the registered Last Will and Testament dated 31.08.2021 of Late Ms. Kamla Bhasin, and Defendants No. 1 and 2 are bound to effect such transmission to Plaintiff.
3. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.1 (HDFC Bank Limited) and Defendant No.2 (National Securities Depository Limited) from transmitting, transferring, or permitting any dealing in the securities held in Demat Account Client ID 60955699, DP ID IN301549 with Defendant No. 1 standing in the name of Late Ms. Kamla Bhasin to Defendant No. 3 (Ms. Bina Kak).
4. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendants No. 1, 2, and 3 from acting contrary to the testamentary dispositions contained in the Last Will and Testament dated 3 1.08.2021 of Late Ms. Kamla Bhasin.
5. Costs of the present suit in favour of plaintiff and against the Defendants."
17. By way of the present application, the plaintiff/petitioner seeks to restrain respondent nos.1 & 2 from transmission of securities held in DEMAT Account Client ID 60955699, DP ID IN301549 standing in the name of Late Ms. Kamla Bhasin to respondent no. 3 and to maintain status quo with respect to the shares held in said DEMAT account.
18. The present suit has been filed due to the dispute that arises from the proposed transmission of DEMAT securities held by the deceased to respondent No. 3 solely on the basis of nomination, despite the existence of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:03:54 a registered Will dated 31.08.2021 (hereinafter „the Will‟) and objections raised by the Executor and the plaintiff Trust.
19. It is stated that under the said Will, the bulk of the estate, including securities held in the DEMAT worth approximately Rs. 30 crores, stands bequeathed to petitioner, with specific bequests made to other beneficiaries, including respondent No. 3. The Will expressly clarifies that nominations in bank and DEMAT accounts confer no beneficial ownership and that nominees hold assets only in the capacity of trustee for the legal heirs/beneficiaries.
20. It is further stated that notwithstanding notice of the Will, respondent No. 1 (HDFC Bank) and respondent No. 2 (NSDL) have indicated their intention to transmit the securities to respondent No. 3, relying on SEBI circulars.
21. It is stated that the respondent No. 3, having already received her specific share under the Will, is now seeking to claim the DEMAT securities contrary to the terms of the Will. It is the case of the petitioner that such transmission would cause irreparable loss by enabling dissipation of assets forming part of the charitable corpus.
22. Mr. Sumit Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the rights of the parties are governed by the duly executed testamentary instrument of the deceased. He contends that the respondent No. 3, though a nominee in the DEMAT account, does not acquire any beneficial ownership in the securities, particularly where such claim runs contrary to the express terms of the Will.
23. He contends that the petitioner being a beneficiary under the Will, has a title in the securities forming part of the estate of the testatrix.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:03:54
24. Per contra, Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 contends that the alleged Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and has not yet been proven in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner‟s claims are contingent upon due proof of the Will at trial, and that no steps have been taken by the plaintiff/petitioner for its proof for over five years.
25. Ms. Mehta further submits that the nomination in favour of respondent No. 3 confers an independent statutory right under Section 72 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Depositories Act, 1996. She contends that, as the duly registered nominee in the DEMAT account of the deceased, respondent No. 3 is entitled to transmission of the securities in her favour in terms of SEBI Circulars dated 18.05.2022 and 10.01.2025.
26. It is additionally urged that the present suit/petition and application are an attempt to impede the statutory transmission process, and that the petitioner has adequate remedies even if the securities are transmitted.
27. She submits that even assuming the existence of a triable issue, the mere establishment of a prima facie case is insufficient in the absence of irreparable injury and balance of convenience. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Prahlad Singh and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 719, to contend that "irreparable injury" denotes an injury incapable of being adequately compensated by damages, and not mere inconvenience.
28. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the court notes that the present application has been filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an ad interim injunction restraining defendant/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from transmitting This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:03:54 the securities held in the DEMAT account of Late Ms. Kamla Bhasin in favour of defendant/respondent No. 3, and for maintaining status quo with respect to the said securities during the pendency of the suit.
29. The existence of a registered Will dated 31.08.2021 does not seems to be in dispute, however, the stand of respondent no. 3 is that the said Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Further, respondent no.3 lays her claim over the securities as a nominee thereof.
30. As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shakti Yezdani and Another v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Others, (2024) 4 SCC 642, that nomination does not confer beneficial ownership and remains subject to law of succession.Therefore, the Will if proved, it is the plaintiff who will be entitled to the securities. The nomination cannot override the testamentary succession. The plaintiff thus, has a prima facie case in its favour.
31. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner. If the securities are transmitted in favour of respondent no. 3 during the pendency of the suit, there exists a real possibility of their alienation or creation of third-party interests, which would seriously prejudice the rights claimed by the petitioner. On the other hand, maintaining status quo would not cause any irreversible prejudice to respondent No. 3, who in any case, cannot use the proceeds of the securities, and has to hold the same as trustee for those who are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased.
32. The element of irreparable injury is also satisfied. The securities in question constitute a substantial part of the estate and are stated to form part of a charitable corpus. Any transfer or dissipation thereof during the pendency of the suit would render the final relief, if granted, nugatory and incapable of effective restitution.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:03:54
33. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff/petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim protection, till the next date of hearing.
34. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are restrained from transmitting the securities held in DEMAT Account Client ID 60955699, DP ID IN301549, standing in the name of Late Ms. Kamla Bhasin, in favour of defendant/respondent No. 3 or any person claiming through her, till the next date of hearing.
35. The respondent no.3 is also restrained from creating any third-party rights, encumbrances, or otherwise dealing with the said securities, in the event of any transmission in her favour, till the next date of hearing.
36. The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied with qua the respondent no.2 within three weeks, and an affidavit of compliance be filed within one week.
37. Reply to the application be filed within four weeks, rejoinder thereto be filed before the next date.
38. List before court on 29.07.2026.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J MARCH 20, 2026 aj This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:03:54