Gujarat High Court
Divya vs State on 8 September, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9636/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9636 of 2008
=========================================================
DIVYA
VASANT DESAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
BANK OF INDIA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KH KAJI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR SUDHIR M MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SH
ALMAULA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 08/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Mr. Vijay Bichewar, Chief Manager, is present.
Heard Mr. Kaji appearing with Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Almaula learned Counsel for the respondent bank.
Prima facie, it appears that as per the petitioner, she is wife of the deceased, and also the first degree legal heirs, and there is no other legal heirs then petitioner of deceased Vasant J Desai. It also prima facie appears that there is already entry in the passbook of PPF account for nomination of the petitioner on 13.9.1991, however, the contention of the respondent bank is that no record exist for such nomination in the bank, and therefore the respondent bank is not confirming the said nomination. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that as per the respondent bank, even in respect of earlier nomination of three persons, which has been subsequently cancelled, the record does not exist with the bank. If such is tested on the ground of genuineness of the defence, it further appears that earlier nomination has been made in the passbook by the officer of the bank by putting initial and the same can be treated as final, unless any cogent material is brought to the notice of this Court, that the person had no authority in respect of other three persons, whose nomination was accepted and cancelled. There are already entries for such purpose, but merely because the bank is not having record, would not invalidate the nomination, if already in existence. Applying the same principles to the nomination made in favour of the petitioner, as such would prevail, even if the bank may not be in a position to trace the record.
Mr. Almaula learned Counsel for the respondent bank further submitted that as per the scheme of the PPF, form No. G is required to be submitted, by the person, seeking withdrawal of the amount, and details with the form No. G, inter alia includes succession certificate/letter of administration, which has not been submitted by the petitioner and therefore, bank could not release the amount, since the balance is exceeding Rs. 1 lac.
The examination of the said contention shows that form No. G is common for the nominees, as well for the legal heirs. If the nominees are to be held good for entitlement of the withdrawal of the amount, there would not be any requirement to produce the succession certificate/letter of administration. It is only in cases where the person is claiming withdrawal as legal heirs, who is not nominee, the requirement may be for production of the succession certificate/letter of administration. When the decease during life time has nominated the particular person for entitlement of the amount for operating account or withdrawal thereof, such is to prevail in case, when the withdrawal is to take place, based on such nominations.
Therefore, Clause III requiring production of such succession certificate/letter of administration, may not apply to the case of the petitioner, since the withdrawal is applied as nominee, and not as the legal heir, though the petitioner who is nominee is also legal heir.
It appears that with a view to allay any apprehension on the part of the bank on the ground of the genuineness of the nomination, if public advertisement is given in any Gujarati Newspaper having wide circulation in the area of Ahmedabad by the petitioner, same would be sufficient.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the event there is no objection raised in response thereto, petitioner could be said as entitle for withdrawal of the amount. However, if any objection is raised, Court may pass appropriate orders examining genuineness of such objection or otherwise.
In any case the bank has to release the money and therefore, it would be just and proper to direct the bank to deposit the amount with this Court, which would enable this Court to pass effective final orders, in the event, petitioner succeeds in establishing the claim.
Hence, by interim direction it is ordered that the respondent bank shall deposit the amount with this Court with the accrued interest lying in the account, within a period of one week. The petitioner shall get advertisement published in the newspaper either in Gujarat Samachar/Divya Bhaskar/Sandesh declaring that the petitioner has claimed amount lying in the PPF account as the nominee of deceased Vasant J Desai, and any person having objections, may submit objections in the proceedings of this petition on the next date or within ten days from the publication.
S.O. to 22.9.2008, for passing further orders and reporting compliance. To be listed on first board.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) Suresh* Top