Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Whatever be the truth, since copies of DA1 is not placed before us, we are unable to make any comment in this respect. 

Be that as it may, the Ld. District Forum quoting Sec. 45ZA (2) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 held that nominees in respect of aforementioned FDRs are/were entitled to receive the money and Respondent No. 1 can/could discharge its liability by paying the said amount to the said nominees in respect of FDR Nos. 28/03 and 29/03.  However, it seems, somehow the Ld. District Forum did not evaluate the impact of sub-sec. (4) of the Sec. 45ZA of the 1949 Act, which runs as under:

The Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in Arnab Kumar Sarkar vs Smt. Reba Mukherjee & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 Cal 79 elaborately dealt with the impact of Sec. 45ZA Banking Regulations Act, 1949.  The following are excerpts from the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Court.

"42. Apart from the avowed purpose of the said Act of 1949. Section 45ZA appearing in Part-III-B, which was incorporated by an amending Act of 1984, is restricted in its operation. Such provision does not, as the Act in which it appears cannot, direct the fate of the assets of a deceased constituent or depositor. It only limits the obligation and liability of the bank.
43. Sub-section (1) of Section 45ZA defines a nominee. The nominee is such person to whom the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company. Sub-section (2) confers the exclusive right on the nominee to receive the amount of deposit. The provisions are concerned with the return and the receipt of the deposit. As to what happens to the monies upon the return and receipt being completed, is not governed by these provisions as they are beyond the pale of the Act.
44. The bank may be liable if the deposit is not returned to the nominee. It is the bank's obligation to ensure that, the person claiming to be the nominee is in fact, the nominee. Upon this return and receipt, the bank is discharged. Sub-section (4) confirms such discharge.
45. But Sub-section (4) of Section 45ZA carries a proviso which, in the context, resolves all confusion, if there was any to start with.
46. The "right of claim" referred to in the proviso, necessarily has to be in relation to the money received by a nominee in respect of a bank deposit. The plaintiff in this case could not have sued the bank or sought payment from the bank directly. Section 45ZA  would not permit the bank to hand over the payment to persons other than the nominee, unless the nominee so required or unless the claimant produced the requisite document recognized in the proviso to Section 45ZB.