Allahabad High Court
Shariq Aman @ Bablu vs The Chairman, Bank Of India And Another on 2 February, 2024
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:18747-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15189 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shariq Aman @ Bablu Respondent :- The Chairman, Bank Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Himanshu Pandey Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava for the respondent-Bank and Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, holding brief of Mr. Himanshu Pandey for the private respondent. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and accordingly matter has been proceeded.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to release the credit balance of account No. 691510100008616 in Bank of India, Lohatia Branch, Varanasi standing in the name of Mrs. Nazma Siddiqui (hereinafter referred to as account holder), the deceased account holder who died on 9.6.2015. During her life time, she had issued written instruction to the respondent bank to nominate the present petitioner for the purpose of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. At the same time, it is not disputed to the parties that the petitioner is the son of the sister of the deceased account holder. His claim of adoption is wholly disputed by the private respondent. The private respondent claims entitlement to receive the credit balance lying in the said account under the law of succession. He has also applied for Succession Certificate which proceeded and is pending at the civil court in Misc. Case No. 117 of 2015/70 (Zafar Sadiq Vs. Shariq Aman and others). Those proceedings are lying stayed by virtue of an order dated 27.10.2017 passed in the matter under Article 227 No. 6625 of 2017 (Shariq Aman @ Bablu Vs. State of U.P. and another).
4. Thus, it has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the private respondent, pending the above succession case proceedings, the money lying in the bank account may not be released in favor of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has obtained the stay in the succession case proceedings, it is further asserted that the money, if released, would be lost for ever.
5. At the same time, learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned counsel for the bank could not dispute the applicability of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
6. We had the occasion to consider the status of a nominee viz-a-viz the amounts lying in credit with a banking company such as the respondent bank in Cdr. Vineet Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & 3 Ors.; Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:12018-DB. Therein, it was observed as under :
"14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place it is a settled principle in law that a nominee steps into the shoes of the depositor i.e. the deceased. The successor remains entitled to the estate as per the law/rule of succession. However, the nominee remains entitled to receive the money from the third party, as may be accounted for from those who may succeed to the estate of the deceased. In Ram Chander Talwar and another Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and others, (2010) 10 SCC 671, it was observed as below :-
"Section 45-ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Section 45-ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed."
15. Therefore, there is no conflict of rights or interests between the nominee and those who may succeed to the estate of the deceased. To that extent the role that the nominee plays remains akin to that of her administrator appointed under a testamentary document.
16. In any case, Section 45-ZA of the Act introduced by Act No. 1 of 1984 w.e.f. 29.03.1985 leaves no matter of doubt, in the above regard. As correctly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, by virtue of Section 45-ZA (2) of the Act, the nominee alone remains entitled to receive the money from the bank notwithstanding any disposition whether testamentary or otherwise. The right to receive the money from the Bank is distinct and different from the right to succeed to that money. Seen in that light, the petitioner has a perfect right to receive the money from the Bank, at present.
17. It is to enforce that provision of law that the Reserve Bank of India has issued the Circular instruction dated 09.06.2005 (noticed above). Those instructions appear to have been issued in public interest to ensure that the new law (Section 45-ZA), is given full effect by the Banking Companies. Section 35-A (1) of the Act leaves no matter of doubt that those directions issued by Reserve Bank of India are mandatory in nature and the respondent bank is duty bound to follow the same."
7. Thus, both on the own force of Section 45ZA of the Act as also in view of the binding Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, it cannot be denied that the nominee is entitled to receive the credit balance in the account of the deceased account holder. However such nominee would remain obligated in law to account for that money to the persons who may succeed to such money.
8. In view of that undoubted position in law, present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent bank may release the money lying in account No. 691510100008616 in Bank of India, Lohatia Branch, Varanasi together with accumulated interest to the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to and is bound to account for the same to such person who may succeed to the estate of the deceased account holder.
9. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024 n.u.
(Manjive Shukla, J) (S.D. Singh, J)