Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. The Supreme Court's decision in Ram Chander Talwar & Anr. v Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors.27 was delivered on 6th October 2010 a few months after Kokate. Its relevance lies in the fact that it quite unequivocally reiterates the legal position in relation to a nominee and a nomination following Khanchandani; and Talwar does so in the context of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, a provision that is in pari materia with Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956:

27
(2010) 10 SCC 671 35 of 47 TP-457-2014-S-503-2014-SALGAONKAR-GHATALIA-F.DOC

28. Mr. Pai's submission that the expression 'right to receive' is materially different from 'the right to vest' is not one that commends itself. The Supreme Court in Talwar said:

5. Section 45ZA(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 45ZA(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.

Talwar came after Kokate, and it is not, of course, a reason to

29. hold that the latter decision is per incuriam. But Talwar is significant because it reiterates in demonstrably comparable circumstances a statement of law that was canvassed before the Kokate court and expressly rejected; and, further, traces this statement of law at least to Khanchandani, a decision that preceded Kokate by several months.