- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Deepesh Kedia v. Indian Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF ON THE 21stOF SEPTEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 21863 of 2023
DEEPESH KEDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
INDIAN BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mukesh Agrawal - Advocate along with Shri Ayush Gupta - Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Verma - Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
ORDER
Petitioners have approached this Court assailing the communication dated 08.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1/ Indian Bank, Jabalpur Branch, whereby the petitioners are directed to produce succession certificate or probate for settlement of locker account of their deceased father and for the purpose of operating Locker No.60. It is not in dispute that father of the petitioners late Mr. Vishnu Prashad Kedia was having a Locker No.60 in the branch and he died on 13.03.2023. As there was no nomination in the locker account, the Bank issued direction to the petitioners to provide the succession certificate or probate in respect of unregistered will allegedly executed by the father of the petitioners. The said communication is under challenge before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no dispute
1
between the legal heirs of the deceased late Mr. Vishnu Prashad Kedia and there is no requirement in law that the will should be compulsorily registered. He further submits that the demand of succession certificate or probate is not in conformity with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. He submits that the Reserve Bank of India has also issued direction to obtain documents regarding identity of the survivor/ nominee and indemnity from the person who is claiming right on behalf of deceased to operate the locker. He relied on the judgment delivered by Chattisgarh High Court in the matter of Vimala Devi Vs. Shobha Walia & Ors. 2006 SCC OnLine Chhatisgarh 28, wherein the Chattisgarh High Court has held that no succession certificate can be issued in respect of any Bank locker and the Court has only power to issue succession certificate with respect to any debt or security. It is further held by Chattisgarh High Court that access to locker and the ornaments kept inside it, do not fall within the list as enshrined under Section 370(2) of Indian Succession Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/Indian Bank submits that the communication was issued as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and in the absence of registration of will, the same cannot be accepted by the Bank.
4. After considering the arguments of rival parties, I am of the opinion that when there is no dispute among the legal heirs of the deceased, the direction issued to provide the succession certificate or probate in respect of unregistered will is not justified. Even as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, it is not essential to obtain the succession certificate or probate
2
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
before operating the locker of the deceased however, the Bank should take care and caution in respect of the identity of the claimants. Bank may also ask the petitioners to furnish indemnity, but the demand of succession certificate or probate is not justified.
5. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1/Bank to permit the petitioners to remove the contents of the locker after securing the documents establishing their identity and upon execution of indemnity bond. The petitioners will also supply the written consent of all the other the legal heirs of the deceased to the Bank along with the copies of the documents of their identity. At the time of opening the locker, the list of the articles lying in the locker will be prepared and will be verified by the notary and the articles will be properly valued also.
6. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of. Shub
3
Alert