Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.22 seconds)

Shri Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anr vs Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr on 16 August, 2000

17. As far as Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act is concerned, the above section indicate that the amount shall be paid to the nominee. It is also to be noted that Section 45ZD makes it clear that when there is an Order or a certificate or other authority from a Court obtained relating to such article is produced before the bank, the bank shall take due note of such decree, Order, certificate or other authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that even after the succession certificate is granted by the competent Court is produced before the bank, they cannot ignore the same merely on the basis of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act. Even though 45ZA contained non obstante clause, the Page 21 / 24 http://www.judis.nic.in A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 Apex Court in Vishin N. Khanchandani Vs. Vidya Lachamandas Khanchandani reported in 2000 (6) SCC 724 in para 11 has categorically held that though the over riding effect of non obstante clause to attract the applicability of the phrase, the whole of the section, the scheme of the Act and the objects and reasons for which such an enactment is made have to kept in mind, as the nominee has to be treated as a trustee and he is entitled to receive the amount only and he has to pay the amount to the persons who are entitled under law of succession. Therefore, when the succession certificate already granted, the object of the Indian Succession Act has to be given importance. Accordingly, the contention that only the nominee alone as per section 45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act is entitled to receive the money even after succession certificate is granted, cannot be countenanced. Therefore, merely because a suit has been filed at a later point of time at the instance of the nominee, despite the succession certificate has been produced, the same has no relevance to decide this application. If at all the second respondent in the event of succeeding in the suit in O.S.No.5683 of 2019, to realise the amount, this Court is of the view that some security has to be offered by the applicant herein. The learned counsel for the applicant Mr.Mohan submitted that in C.S.No.899 of 2017 already 1/4th share of the applicant has been declared Page 22 / 24 http://www.judis.nic.in A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 and preliminary decree is already passed and charge may be created in respect of the above 1/4th share of the applicant towards the deposit amount till the interpleader suit is decided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 165 - Full Document

Smt. Sarabati Devi & Anr vs Smt. Usha Devi on 6 December, 1983

In the judgment in Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Usha Devi reported in 1984 (1) SCC 424, the Apex Court has held that mere nomination made under section 39 of the Life Insurance Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nominee cannot be considered as equivalent to an heir or legatee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 299 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

V.S. Ekambaram, P.S. Raghupathy, S. ... vs The Appellate Authority Under The ... on 22 July, 2002

The Single Judge of this Court in S.Sampath Vs. the Regional Manager, State Bank of India in W.P.No.26992 of 2017 has held that Page 14 / 24 http://www.judis.nic.in A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 When there is nomination as per section 45ZA of Banking Regulation Act 1949, the bank has to release the amount to the nominee and allowed the writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 82 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Rama Chakravarty vs Manager, Punjab National Bank And ... on 7 November, 1990

In the judgment in Rama Chakravarty Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in 1991 (1) Cal. L.T. 324, the Calcutta High Court directed the bank to release the amount on the basis of the deposit. These cases will not help the respondent in any manner. Since in the above cases, the bank insisted for succession certificate in favour of the nominee, in such situation, the Court held that as long there is nomination, the bank is bound to release the amount to the nominee under section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next