# Manoj Kumar Sharma v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 562
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-13
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 8197 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-sharma-v-u-o-i-anr-51102
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Banking Law - Succession - Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 45ZA -
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.
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 S. 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. (Para 8)

The petitioner's main argument is that the
petitioner being the nominee, the petitioner is
entitled to receive the money in the FDRs as per
Section 45ZA. (Para 5)

The petitioner has a right to obtain the money
from the bank as he is a nominee. However, this
money which is received by the petitioner would
be subject to the succession laws and the heirs
of the deceased would have a right to the said
amount in accordance with law. (Para 11)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Ram Chander Talwar & anr. Vs Devender Kumar
Talwar & ors., (2010) 10 SCC 671 (Para 8)

## Text

562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undergone by him in prison. Thus, in this
background, the rigours of Section 375
Cr.P.C. barring appeal in cases where
accused pleads guilty would not be strictly
applicable, as the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13th
July, 2022 contain conflicting findings
relating to the sentence part.

18. As a result, the objection raised
by the learned State Counsel regarding
maintainability of the appeal is also hereby
rejected. In view of the above discussion,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the impugned sentence part contained in
the judgment dated 13.7.2022 suffers from
grave illegality and calls for interference by
this
Court
in
exercise
of
appellate
jurisdiction.

19. Resultantly, the appeal is party
allowed
and
while
maintaining
the
judgment of conviction dated 13th July,
2022, the impugned order on sentence is
modified to the extent that all the sentences
imposed upon the appellant-convict for
commission of offences punishable under
Section 354A IPC, Section 11/12 Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and Section 3(1)X Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989
shall
run
concurrently.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 562
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ -C No. 8197 of 2024

Manoj Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Lal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anadi Krishna Narayana, Harish Kumar
Yadav, Ishan Shishu, Sandeep Kumar Singh

A. Banking Law - Succession - Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 45ZA -
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.
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 S. 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. (Para 8)

The petitioner's main argument is that the
petitioner being the nominee, the petitioner is
entitled to receive the money in the FDRs as per
Section 45ZA. (Para 5)

The petitioner has a right to obtain the money
from the bank as he is a nominee. However, this
money which is received by the petitioner would
be subject to the succession laws and the heirs
of the deceased would have a right to the said
amount in accordance with law. (Para 11)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Ram Chander Talwar & anr. Vs Devender Kumar
Talwar & ors., (2010) 10 SCC 671 (Para 8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)
11 All. Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
563

In Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment
Application.

1. Impleadment application is
allowed.

2. Let the necessary impleadment
be incorporated in the memo of
writ petition forthwith.

Writ Petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has
been filed seeking the following
reliefs:-

 "(I) Issue a Writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
Mandamus
directing
and
commanding the respondent No.2
to release the FDR Account No.
25660300006755,
25660300006754,
25660300015398
and
25660300006756
in
favour
of
petitioner as being a nominee and a
legal heir.
(II) To, issue any other writ
order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper and the circumstances of the
case.
(III) Award the cost of the
petition in favour of the petitioner."

3. The brief facts of the case are
that the mother of the petitioner died on
February 8, 2020. Before the death of the
mother of the petitioner, the mother of the
petitioner was owner of several properties
as well as owner of several FDRs at the
Bank of Baroda. In all these FDRs the
petitioner has been named as a nominee.

4. It is to be noted that the
petitioner had also filed succession suit
being Civil Suit No.195 of 2020 before the
learned
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)/F.T.C.,
Moradabad.
However,
this suit was dismissed on the ground that
there
was
another
suit
pending
for
cancellation of the alleged will of the
petitioner's mother.

5. The petitioner's main argument
is that the petitioner being the nominee, the
petitioner is entitled to receive the money
in the FDRs as per Section 45ZA of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act'). The said section is
delineated below:-

"45ZA. Nomination for
payment of depositors' money.?
(1) Where a deposit is held
by a banking company to the credit
of one or more persons, the
depositor or, as the case may be, all
the
depositors
together,
may
nominate,
in
the
prescribed
manner, one person to whom in the
event of the death of the sole
depositor or the death of all the
depositors, the amount of deposit
may be returned by the banking
company.
(2)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force or in
any
disposition,
whether
testamentary
or
otherwise,
in
respect of such deposit, where a
nomination made in the prescribed
manner purports to confer on any
person the right to receive the
amount of deposit from the banking
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
company, the nominee shall, on the
death of the sole depositor or, as
the case may be, on the death of all
the depositors, become entitled to
all the rights of the sole depositor
or, as the case may be, of the
depositors, in relation to such
deposit to the exclusion of all other
persons, unless the nomination is
varied
or
cancelled
in
the
prescribed manner.
(3) Where the nominee is a
minor, it shall be lawful for the
depositor making the nomination to
appoint in the prescribed manner
any person to receive the amount of
deposit in the event of his death
during the minority of the nominee.
(4) Payment by a banking
company in accordance with the
provisions of this section shall
constitute a full discharge to the
banking company of its liability in
respect of the deposit: Provided
that nothing contained in this subsection shall effect the right or
claim which any person may have
against the person to whom any
payment
is
made
under
this
section."

6. The petitioner further relies on
the Circular letter No.RB12004-05/490
09.06.2005. Paragraph 2 of the said
Circular is provided below:-

"2.
ACCESS
TO
BALANCE
IN
DEPOSIT
ACCOUNTS
(A)
Accounts
with
survivor/nominee clause

2.1 As you are aware, in
the case of deposit accounts where
the depositor had utilized the
nomination facility and made a
valid nomination or where the
account was opened with the
survivorship clause ("either or
survivor", or "anyone or survivor",
or "former or survivor" or "latter
or survivor"), the payment of the
balance in the deposit account to
the
survivor(s)/nominee
of
a
deceased deposit account holder
represents a valid discharge of the
bank's liability provided:
(a) the bank has exercised
due
care
and
caution
in
establishing the identity of the
survivor(s) / nominee and the fact
of death of the account holder,
through appropriate documentary
evidence;
(b) there is no order from
the competent court restraining the
bank from making the payment
from the account of the deceased;
and
(c) it has been made clear
to the survivor(s) / nominee that he
would be receiving the payment
from the bank as a trustee of the
legal
heirs
of
the
deceased
depositor, i.e., such payment to him
shall not affect the right or claim
which any person may have against
the survivor(s) / nominee to whom
the payment is made.
2.2 It may be noted that
since
payment
made
to
the
survivor(s) / nominee, subject to the
foregoing
conditions,
would
constitute a full discharge of the
bank's
liability,
insistence
on
production of legal representation
is superfluous and unwarranted
and only serves to cause entirely
avoidable inconvenience to the
survivor(s) / nominee and would,
11 All. Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
565
therefore, invite serious supervisory
disapproval.
In
such
case,
therefore, while making payment to
the survivor(s) / nominee of the
deceased depositor, the banks are
advised to desist from insisting on
production
of
succession
certificate, letter of administration
or probate, etc., or obtain any bond
of indemnity or surety from the
survivor(s)/nominee, irrespective of
the amount standing to the credit of
the deceased account holder."

7. The petitioner argues that
aforesaid Circular is having binding effect
by virtue of provisions of Section 35A. The
Section 35A is provided herein below:-

"[35A.
Power
of
the
Reserve Bank to give directions.-
(1) Where the Reserve Bank is
satisfied that-
(a) in the [public interest];
or
[(aa) in the interest of
banking policy; or]
(b) to prevent the affairs of
any
banking
company
being
conducted in a manner detrimental
to the interests of the depositors or
in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the banking company;
or
(c) to secure the proper
management
of
any
banking
company generally,
it is necessary to issue
directions to banking companies
generally
or
to
any
banking
company in particular, it may, from
time to time, issue such directions
as it deems fit, and the banking
companies
or
the
banking
company, as the case may be, shall
be bound to comply with such
directions.
(2) The Reserve Bank may,
on representation made to it or on
its own motion, modify or cancel
any direction issued under subsection (1), and in so modifying or
cancelling
any
direction
may
impose such conditions as it thinks
fit,
subject
to
which
the
modification or cancellation shall
have effect.]"

8. The petitioner further relies on
the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in
Cdr. Vineet Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of
India and 3 others (Neutral Citation No.-
2024:AHC:12018-DB), wherein the coordinate
Bench
had
considered
the
judgment of Supreme Court in Ram
Chander
Talwar
and
another
Vs.
Devender Kumar Talwar and others,
(2010) 10 SCC 671, wherein the Supreme
Court had held as follows:-

"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
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the deceased depositor and devolve
according to the rule of succession
to which the depositor may be
governed."

9. The co-ordinate Bench had
categorically held as follows:-

"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.
18. Insofar as the other
TDRs are concerned where the
petitioner
is
the
surviving
depositor, his rights may be better.
However, no final conclusion has
been drawn at this stage as the
issue of succession is pending
before the court of competent
jurisdiction. At the same time, by
virtue of the instruction given to the
respondent bank by Col. Satish
Kumar Sharma during his life time,
the respondent bank would remain
obligated to hand over that money
also to the present petitioner.
19.
Let
the
money
deposited against the FDR Nos.
0328833439,
50375954027,
50375954210 and 50470840305,
five other FDRs bearing FDR Nos.
50532431644,
50532431521,
50532431349, 50532431203 and
50532430833 and savings bank
account
No.
20290126475
be
released in favour of the petitioner
forthwith with the rider that the
petitioner would remain liable to
account for the same in accordance
with law."

10. Per contra counsel appearing
on behalf of private respondents and the
State submit that Section 45ZA of the
Banking Regulation Act cannot over rule
the laws of succession and, therefore, even
if the money is required to be given to the
petitioner, the same would have to be held
by the petitioner in trust for the legal heirs
of the deceased.

11. Upon analysis of the catena of
Supreme
Court
judgments
and
the
judgment delivered by the co-ordinate
Bench, we are of the view that it is patently
clear that the petitioner has a right to obtain
the money from the bank as he is a
nominee. However, we are of the view that
this money which is received by the
11 All. Amita Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
567
petitioner would be subject to the
succession laws and the heirs of the
deceased would have a right to the said
amount in accordance with law.

12. Counsel on behalf of petitioner
has given an undertaking before this Court
that he shall hold the money in trust and
shall be liable to make payment to the legal
heirs if and when decided by the courts of
law in accordance with law. In light of the
same, the Bank of Baroda is directed to
release the amounts lying in FDRs in
favour of petitioner within a period of three
weeks from date. The petitioner is directed
to file an affidavit before Bank of Baroda
that money being received by him is being
held by him in trust and undertakes to make
payment of the same to the legal heirs as
and when decided.

13. With the above direction the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 567
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ -C No. 21949 of 2024

Amita Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Somesh Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajal Krishna, C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226 - Writ Petition - Challenge to
the Impugned orders to the effect that
despite culmination of inquiries, one after
another, in favour of the petitioner, the
respondent-officers are bent upon to hold
de novo inquiry - Non-compliance with
Court Orders - Respondent No. 5 failed to
comply with the Court's directive to file a
personal affidavit, leading to his personal
appearance - Violation of Interim Stay -
Abuse of Process - Despite the Court's
interim stay order dated 08.08.2024, a
fresh inquiry was initiated - Respondent No.
5 submitted a personal affidavit - misuse of
authority - abuse of Process and Influence
- Court finds that - respondent No. 5 has
acted above the law, disregarded judicial
orders, and engaged in malpractice and has
attempted to shield his actions by shifting
blame on to the Chief Standing Counsel,
making it clear that adverse inference must
be drawn - Disciplinary Action ordered -
held,
malpractices
and
reprehensible
conduct cannot be tolerated and respondent
No. 5 accountable for violating judicial
orders and engaging in malpractice - thus,
the St. Government is directed to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the officer
and to make interim arrangements for the
functioning of his post - further, present
matter is directed to be list among the top
ten cases - Standing counsel shall place the
action taken by the St. Govt. - the Registrar
(Compliance), High Court, Allahabad, is
directed to send a copy of the order to the
Chief Secretary, U.P., for immediate action -
writ petition pending. (Para - 10, 11, 12,
14, 15)

Writ Petition pending. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Earlier, when the order dated
11.11.2024 directing the respondent No.5 to
file his personal affidavit was not complied
with, this Court, by order dated 21.11.2024,
directed personal appearance of the officer
concerned
explaining
the
reason
of
initiation of another inquiry despite stay of
third de novo investigation.