Supreme Court: In MACT Cases, Court should direct the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation in the bank account of claimants

The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal. {Para 17}

17.1. For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal.

18. In some cases, where the compensation is awarded to minor claimant(s) or otherwise, the Tribunal directs for keeping a certain percentage of the amount in a fixed deposit. Such a direction can always be issued in the award itself to be complied with by the concerned bank. When the amount is transferred by the Insurance Company in the account of the claimant(s), it shall be the responsibility of the bank to ensure that specified portion thereof is kept in the fixed deposit. Compliance is to be reported by the bank(s) to the Tribunal.

19. It is also a fact that substantial amount of compensation in motor accident cases remains deposited in the Tribunal as the claimant(s) may not have approached the Tribunal for release thereof for various reasons. Delay for any reason in release of compensation in motor accident cases by the Tribunal to the claimant(s), where the amount is deposited in Tribunal, as directed, results in loss of interest to the claimant(s). In case the aforesaid process is followed, the gap would be bridged. The real object of the beneficial legislation, namely to compensate for the loss of earning member of the family or for the injuries suffered by the claimant(s), will be achieved and compensation can be disbursed without any delay.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.)

Parminder Singh Vs  Honey Goyal and Others 

Civil Appeal No………………….of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020)

Decided on March 18, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 567

Print Page

Whether investigating officer can attach bank account of a person accused of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act U/S 102 of CRPC?

 Be that as it may, on that account, it is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, the freezing of the account of the appellant cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the impugned order is also set aside leaving open to the respondent to take such recourse in law as may be permissible. 

Supreme Court

JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

RATAN BABULAL LATH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 949 OF 2021

6th September 2021

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 425

Print Page

Whether a person can claim tenancy in the immovable property if he was depositing rent in the bank account of the landlord?

Re: Remittances to owner's account (Exs. 64, 65 and 66)

20. Exs. 64 to 66 produced by first Respondent show that he had deposited ` 300, ` 60 and ` 360/- on 19.8.1988, 20.11.1991 and 14.3.1989 to the account of first Appellant with Bank of Karad. The case of the Respondents was that when Laxmibai inducted them as tenants of the suit portions on a monthly rent of ` 25/-; that they used to pay rent to Laxmibai; that after her death, they used to pay rent to the first Appellant; that in 1988, the first Appellant compelled them to increase the rent to ` 60/-; that as both the Appellants were living outside Vita, the first Respondent used to deposit rent in the bank account of the first Appellant with Bank of Karad. The first appellate court held the fact that the amounts were deposited to first Appellant's account showed that the Appellants had given the account number to first Respondent and inferred that the said amounts might have been deposited towards rent.

21. Appellants have given satisfactory explanation. They submitted that the bank account was a non-functional and non-operated account at Vita and as no notice of deposit was given, they were unaware of the deposits. They submitted that Bank of Karad went into liquidation and they therefore did not even have any record of these payments. They argued that as the second Respondent was looking after Laxmibai and as Respondents were also looking after the premises, the Respondents would have come to know about the bank account of the first Appellant and that first Respondent, being aware that one day or the other, the owners will take action to evict them, had deposited the said amounts to create some kind of evidence. It should also be noted that the Respondents did not send any communication informing the Appellants about the deposits to the first Appellant. Nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towards rent. These factors when coupled with the following three circumstances show that the deposits were not bonafide: (i) There were no rent receipts from either Laxmibai or from the Appellants; (ii) the Respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders; and (iii) there is no explanation as to non-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period. These receipts cannot be relied upon to support the uncorroborated oral testimony of DW-1 (Sadhu) that the same were deposited towards rent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 8400-8401 of 2011 

Decided On: 30.09.2011

 Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare  Vs. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty)

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to issue notice to account holder prior to freezing of bank Account?

As regards the procedure for issuing instructions to freeze the bank accounts, it is noticed that the same has been followed by giving intimation to the concerned Magistrate on 21st November, 2014 as required in terms of Section 102 of the Code. There is nothing in Section 102 which mandates giving of prior notice to the account holder before the seizure of his bank account. The Magistrate after noticing that the principle stated by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0213/2007 : (2008) Cri.L.J. 148 (Bom.) has been overruled in terms of the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar (supra), rightly negatived that contention. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has expounded that Section 102 does not require issuance of notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action attaching his bank account. In the case of Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/MH/0932/2011 : (2012) Cri.L.J. 520 (Bom.), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court once again considered the issue and rejected the argument that prior notice to the account holder was required to be given before seizure of his bank account. It also noted that the bank account need not be only of the Accused but it can be any account creating suspicion about the commission of an offence. The view so taken commends us.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of 2017 

Decided On: 15.12.2017

Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors.

Print Page

Whether bank account is a property which can be freezed during course of investigation?

Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure Under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be 'property' within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the Accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the Accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the Accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the Accused or any of his relations is 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of 2017 

Decided On: 15.12.2017

Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Citation:(2018) 2 SCC 372

Print Page

Whether wife can be permitted to operate bank account of her husband if he is in COMA?

The wife of a retired general manager with a PSU, who is comatose for over a month, has moved the Bombay high court to be allowed to access his bank accounts.

Philomina, wife of Leo Lobo (63), has sought to be appointed as his guardian—in the absence of specific legal provisions to deal with the rights of such patients— so that she can use his account to fund his medical care. On Wednesday, the Central government counsel, Advait Sethna, said first a sub-divisional magistrate's report must be called for to verify the medical certificate and her claim.

The HC then immediately directed a sub-divisional magistrate from Thane Collectorate to visit the Lobos' Nerul house and prepare a report on Leo's health condition by Friday. Neurologists from Apollo Hospital in Navi Mumbai had certified that Leo Lobo was suffering from 'malignant MCA territory infarction of the brain' and was 'in a persistent vegetative state'.

Print Page

Whether accused can be discharged in cheque dishonour case if he deposits cheque amount in bank account of complainant?

In every complaint under Section 138 of the Act, it may be desirable that the complainant gives his bank account number and if possible e-mail ID of the accused. If e-mail ID is available with the Bank where the accused has an account, such Bank, on being required, should furnish such e-mail ID to the payee of the cheque. In every summons, issued to the accused, it may be indicated that if the accused deposits the specified amount, which should be assessed by the Court having regard to the cheque amount and interest/cost, by a specified date, the accused need not appear unless required and proceedings may be closed subject to any valid objection of the complainant . If the accused complies with such summons and informs the Court and the complainant by e-mail, the Court can ascertain the objection, if any, of the complainant and close the proceedings unless it becomes necessary to proceed with the case. In such a situation, the accused’s presence can be required, unless the presence is otherwise exempted subject to such conditions as may be considered appropriate.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

M/S Meters And Instruments ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017

Author: A K Goel.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4594,2018(4) MHLJ 1

This Caselaw is overruled in 

In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.A. Bobde, C.J.I., L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2021 SC 1957,MANU/SC/0284/2021

https://www.lawweb.in/2022/10/guidelines-of-supreme-court-for.html

Print Page

Whether employee can be denied salary on ground that he has not opened account in official bank?

  As far as the drawal of salary through a bank account

is concerned, it will not be necessary that each of the employees

should have the salary account with official bank itself. The

official bank can very well transfer the salary of the petitioners

to their accounts existing in SBI, on a request/standing

instruction from the accounts wing of the 1st respondent. For

such transfers, the 1st respondent need not compel the


petitioners to open zero balance account or salary account with

IDBI, in case they do not want to have any transaction with the

IDBI. The audit objection raised against making payment in cash

could have been rectified by placing proper instructions to the

official bank of the 1st respondent having the financial

transactions including salary of the staff of the 1st respondent to

transfer the salary due to the petitioners to their account. As

soon as the account number and other details of the petitioners

are furnished to the official Bank, it is quite possible that the

amounts due to each of the employee are credited to their

account. Thereby the 1st respondent will get the services of the

IDBI also as explained by them in the counter affidavit even

without insisting the petitioners to have accounts with the IDBI.

Such trivial matters could have been solved at the end of the 1st

respondent itself. Therefore, denial of salary to the petitioners on

the ground that they did not open account with IDBI bank is

illegal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

              SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

       14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017

                    WP(C).No. 37894 of 2016 (J)
                 

           T.M.DINESH KUMAR,
          V
           MALABAR CANCER CENTRE SOCIETY,
          

Print Page

When court can grant injunction against encashment of bank guarantee?

 On perusal of the record of the case, we find that
firstly, arbitration proceedings in relation to the
contract dated 22.08.2005 are still pending. Secondly,
the sum claimed by the respondents from the
appellant does not relate to the contract for which the
Bank Guarantee had been furnished but it relates to
another contract dated 22.08.2005 for which no bank
guarantee had been furnished. Thirdly, the sum
claimed by the respondents from the appellant is in
the nature of damages, which is not yet adjudicated
upon in arbitration proceedings. Fourthly, the sum
claimed is neither a sum due in praesenti nor a sum

payable. In other words, the sum claimed by the
respondents is neither an admitted sum and nor a
sum which stood adjudicated by any Court of law in
any judicial proceedings but it is a disputed sum and
lastly, the Bank Guarantee in question being in the
nature of a performance guarantee furnished for
execution work of contract dated 14.07.2006 (Anand
Vihar works) and the work having been completed to
the satisfaction of the respondents, they had no right
to encash the Bank Guarantee.
43) We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that
both the courts below erred in dismissing the
appellant's application for grant of injunction. We are
indeed constrained to observe that both the courts
committed jurisdictional error when they failed to take
note of the law laid down by this Court in Union of
India (DGS&D) (supra) which governed the
controversy and instead placed reliance on Himadri
Chemicals Industries Ltd. vs. Coal Tar Refining

Company, AIR 2007 SC 2798 and U.P. State Sugar
Corporation vs. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1
SCC 568, which laid down general principle relating to
Bank Guarantee. There can be no quarrel to the
proposition laid down in those cases. However, every
case has to be decided with reference to the facts of
the case involved therein. The case at hand was
similar on facts with that of the case of Union of India
(DGS&D) (supra) and hence the law laid down in that
case was applicable to this case. Even in this Court,
both the learned counsel did not bring to our notice
the law laid down in Union of India (DGS&D) case
(supra).
44) We are also of the view that the District Judge
having decided the injunction application in the first
instance in appellant's favour vide order dated
04.01.2012 erred in rejecting the application made by
the appellant second time vide order dated
12.07.2012. It is not in dispute that the respondents

despite having suffered the injunction order dated
04.01.2012 did not file any appeal against this order.
Such order thus attained finality and was, therefore,
binding on the parties.
45) In the light of foregoing discussion, we hold that
the appellants have made out a prima facie case in
their favour for grant of injunction against the
respondents so also they have made out a case of
balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their
favour as was held by this Court in the case of Union
of India (DGS&D) (supra). They are, therefore,
entitled to claim injunction against the respondent in
relation to encashment of Bank Guarantee no.
12/2006 dated 04.08.2006.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4814 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No. 27052 of 2012)
M/s Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Dated:May 05, 2016.
Citation:2016(3)ALLMR967 SC

Print Page

Minors above 10 years can operate Bank Account:

Reserve Bank of India vide notification dated May 6, 2014 allowed minors above 10 years of age can be allowed to operate their savings bank account to operate independently. Minors can open saving/fixed/ recurring bank deposit account through his natural or legally appointed guardian. Banks are free to offer additional banking facilities like internet banking, ATM/ debit card, cheque book facility etc., subjected to certain safeguards that minor accounts are not allowed to be overdrawn and that these always remain in credit.. As per the guidelines, minors after attaining majority are required to confirm the balance in his/her account The object for the same is to promote the objective of financial inclusion and also to bring uniformity among banks in opening and operating minors’ accounts. [RBI/2013-14/581, DBOD.No.Leg.BC.108/09.07.005/2013-14]

Refer to the link below to read the notification http://bit.ly/1jRTgPb

Print Page

Whether police has power to seize or prohibit operation of bank account of accused?

 We see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is `property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into.

Supreme Court of India

State Of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy on 16 September, 1999

Citation;1999 AIR SCW3389

Print Page