Rights of Nominee V. Rights of legal heirs

 Having recorded the above conclusion, it is imperative
for us to deal with the conclusion recorded in paragraph 6 (already
extracted above) of the judgment of this Court in the Usha Ranjan
Bhattacharjee case (supra). In this behalf, it is necessary to
clarify that transfer of share or interest, based on a nomination
under Section 79 in favour of the nominee, is with reference to the
concerned Cooperative Society, and is binding on the said society.
The Cooperative Society has no option whatsoever, except to
transfer the membership in the name of the nominee, in consonance
with Sections 79 and 80 of the 1983 Act (read with Rules 127 and
128 of the 1987 Rules). That, would have no relevance to the issue
of title between the inheritors or successors to the property of
the deceased. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, we
therefore hereby direct `the Cooperative Society' to transfer the
share or interest of the society in favour of the appellant –
Indrani Wahi. It shall however, be open to the other members of the
family (presently only the son of Biswa Ranjan Sengupta – Dhruba
Jyoti Sengupta; we are informed that his mother – Parul Sengupta
has died), to pursue his case of succession or inheritance, if he
is so advised, in consonance with law.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVILAPPEAL No.4646 OF 2006

INDRANI WAHI V REGISTRAR OF COOP. SOCIETIES & ORS.

Citation:(2016) 6 SCC440

Print Page

Whether personal heirs of nominee has locus standi for obtaining succession certificate?

I would also refer to a recent decision in Noor Mahomed v. Sardar Khatun A.I.R. 1949 sind 38: (pak. Cas 1949 Sind 125), in which it has been held that the nominee of a subscriber has nothing more than a right to receive the amount and that he does not get an absolute title to it, I would further point out that under Section 3, Provident Funds Act the amount standing to the credit of a subscriber at the time of his death can vest only in his dependant and not in the nominee. In would therefore follow that upon the death of the nominee, whether before or after the death of the subscriber, the right of the nominee to receive the amount cannot pass to his personal heirs. In this case, the nominee died before the subscriber died and therefore the nomination in his favour actually became null and void. In the circumstances, the personal heirs of the nominee have no locus standi at all and the lower appellate Court was right in granting succession certificate to the Respondent.

Equivalent Citation : AIR 1950 Nag 244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR

Civil Revn. No. 635 of 1949

Decided On: 24.11.1949

 Mt. Shakuran Bi and Ors.Vs. Mt. Aishabi

Coram:
Mudholkar, J.

Print Page

Whether it is unethical for company to appoint or nominate a person for facing prosecutions in court of law?

The aforesaid provision clearly provides for the company to appoint or nominate a person for facing the prosecutions in the court of law. This provision clearly exonerates the real culprits who manufacture adulterated and dangerous products or articles by saying that they are merely sleeping directors of the company having no role to play in the actual process of manufacturing and though they are real beneficiaries of the adulterated goods or articles sold by the company, the person nominated by them shall be only guilty of any of the offence even if the offence is punishable under Section 1A up to life imprisonment. The activity of adulteration by extending such an exemption to the real beneficiaries and the manufacturers of the adulterated products is not at all checked and thus such provisions clearly act as an obstacle in the administration of justice and the provisions of these welfare legislation concerning the human health are not at all implemented, which is the object in framing these laws.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 3439 of 2006

Decided On: 21.06.2010

 Shivkumar alias Shiwalamal Narumal Chugwani Proprietor of Kanhaiya General Stores
Vs.
 State of Maharashtra at the instance of Subhash Madhukar Choudhary
[Alongwith Criminal Application Nos. 3440, 3441, 3442, 3443, 3444, 3445 of 2006, 1290 of 2008]

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Print Page

Whether legal heirs and not nominees will get ownership rights of share certificates?

Declaring the judgment of Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd 2010  to be per incuriam, a bench comprising of G.S. Patel, J has held that legal heirs and not the nominees will get the ownership rights of share certificates. The Court declared the earlier judgment to be per incuriam, which means it had been wrongly decided and does not have to be followed. In the Kokate judgment,the Court had mistakenly concluded that once a nomination is made, the securities in question automatically get transferred in the name of the nominee upon the death of the holder of the shares and not to the legal heirs.

The Court had considered the provisions of Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956, and Bye-Law 9.11 under the Depositories Act and held that they do not displace the law of succession. The Court also discussed the purpose of nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act and various Supreme Court cases where it has been laid down that although the insurance company would pay the amount due on insured’s death to the nominee, they would hold it in “trust” and ultimately only the legal heirs of the deceased could claim the property. Disagreeing with the views of Kokate judgment, the Court observed that it had failed to consider many binding judgments of the Supreme Court     including the judgment ofSarbati Devi v Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424.

The Court held that that the rights of a nominee to shares of a company cannot override the rights of legal heirs of deceased and therefore the amount received by the nominee can be claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 822 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO. 503 OF 2014
In the matter between
JAYANAND JAYANT SALGAONKAR,

versus
 JAYASHREE JAYANT SALGAONKAR,

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 31st March 2015

Print Page

Whether succession certificate can be granted in contravention of Nomination?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Decided On: 07.05.2008

Smt. Naseem Begum alias Naseem AktharVs. Smt. Shaista and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Amitava Lala and Shishir Kumar, JJ.

Citation: 2008 (72) ALR 701, 2008 4 AWC3467All, II(2008)DMC669

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Succession certificate--Nominee in service record of deceased--Whether appellant is legally wedded wife of deceased or respondent No. 1--To be determined by civil court--Suit for declaration that appellant is legally married wife--Already instituted by her--Unless service record corrected, authority obliged to pay amount to nominee.

Print Page

Whether widow is entitled to get succession certificate even though she is not nominee?

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8--Succession--Share of heirs--Deceased died on 8.11.1990 leaving behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives--Entitled to succeed--Mother being nominee--Entitled to receive amount payable to deceased --To be distributed according to law of succession--Nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on nominee--On day when succession opened--Appellant his widow became entitled to one half of amount of G.P.F. of deceased--Other half to go to mother--And on her death other surviving son getting same--Employer S.B.I. to release half of amount of G.P.F. to appellant.

Amount in any head can be received by nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs in accordance with law of succession governing them.

Supreme Court of India

Shipra Sengupta vs Mridul Sengupta & Ors on 20 August, 2009

Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Mukundakam Sharma

Citation;(2009)10SCC680,

Print Page

Whether deemed wife can be granted pensionary benefits?

While deciding the question that in a scenario where the marriage is proved but held to be illegal, whether the wife can claim the benefits of family pension, the Court observed that a long cohabitation would draw the presumption of marriage and on that score the deemed wife would be entitled to receive the pension benefits as claimed for. 

The second appeal arose from the situation where after the demise of the husband, the petitioner via her counsel Mr M.P.Senthil claimed for the family pension as the nominee, but was refused by the appellate Court on the ground that her marriage to the deceased was illegal as there were no records of the dissolution of deceased’s first marriage. The respondent’s counsel Mr K.K.Senthilvelan argued that deceased’s first marriage did not dissolve in the court hence the petitioner’s marriage is illegal thus rendering her ineligible to claim family pension. The counsel for the petitioner presented documents ascertaining the existence of the marriage in question. 

The Court relying upon Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy, AIR 1927 PC 185 and Mohabbat Ali v. Khan Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135, observed that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. The Court also observed that the concept of marriage to constitute the relationship of husband and wife may require strict interpretation whereas the claims for civil rights, right to property etc., may follow a liberal approach, thus a financially dependent woman cannot be denied the benefits.

Therefore, heavy burden lies on the person, who seeks to prove that no marriage has taken place. The concept of marriage to constitute the relationship of husband and wife may require strict interpretation were claims for civil rights, right to property etc., may follow or flow and a liberal approach and different perception cannot be an anathema when the question of curbing the social evil is concerned. In RAMESH CHANDRA RAMPRATHAPJI DAGA Vs. RAMESHWARI RAMESH CHANDRA DAGA reported in AIR 2005 SC 422, wherein it is held that the Hindu Marriages continued to be bigamous in spite of the enactment of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. No doubt, those marriages are illegal as per the provision of the Act, they are not immoral and hence a financially dependent woman cannot be denied the benefits on that ground.

Madras High Court

S. Muthulakshmi vs The Record Officer on 24 June, 2014

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24/6/2014
CORAM
 Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Second Appeal (MD) No.1068 of 2009

Print Page