IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a legal mandate for probating the will and the wilful disobedience to court directions by the bank were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. The present contempt petition is filed by the petitioner under section 2(b), 11 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against respondent No.1/UCO Bank for the deliberate violation and non-compliance of the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11552 of 2019.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The Petitioner herein is the ex-daughter-in-law of Late Sh. Pavani Parameshwara Rao, who was a Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India. She filed a writ petition claiming that her father-in-law/testator had executed a registered will on 29.06.2017 before his death and he passed away on 13.09.2017. Evidently, the Will of the deceased as expressed by him was his last & final Will, had nominated the Petitioner as the `Executor' of his Will.

3. The details of the moveable and immoveable properties of the deceased have been clearly delineated in the Will as also its apportionment amongst the Legal Heirs of the deceased. However, the present contempt petition encapsulates the issue regarding the three bank accounts of the deceased in UCO Bank, Supreme Court Branch, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi viz., Savings, Current and Assistants. Current Bank Account. The claim that has to be released by the Respondent No.1/Bank is to the tune of Rs.4,96,07,344.81/-.

4. It was the case of the Petitioner in the writ that she approached respondent No.1/Bank to release the impugned sum of money for the distribution of the same to the Legal Heirs of the deceased according to the Will. However, the Bank vide letter dated 20.10.2018 requested the Executor of the Will to submit certain documents viz., (i) fresh indemnity bond, (ii) fresh affidavit, (iii) probated copy of the Will, (iv) death certificate of Late Sh. PP Rao and his wife, (v) the survivor certificate, and (vi) if the executor is not ready to probate the Will then all the legal heirs are required to lodge separate claim.

5. As a consequence of which the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No.1/Bank stating that the probate of the Will is not required as per Section 57 of the India Succession Act, 1925 [Act] as none of the properties of the deceased are situated/located within the territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai. However, all other documents, were submitted by the Petitioner on 24.06.2019. In reply, the respondent No.1/UCO Bank vide letter dated 09.09.2019, raised three concerns with regards to: (i) probate of the Will, (ii) the survivor certificate of the legal heirs and (iii) the genuineness of the Will, which as per them could only be proved after grant of probate of the Will. While on the other hand, the Central Bank of India vide letter dated 19.09.2019 stipulated that the succession certificate or probate was not necessary for the release of money.

6. The petitioner in the writ/main matter assailed the decision of the letter dated 20.10.2018 of the UCO Bank canvassing the plea that the policies of both Central Bank of India and UCO Bank are regulated by the Reserve Bank of India as they both are Nationalized Banks, and therefore, there could be no two different policies for both the Banks. It was pointed out that other Banks where the Testator had accounts, namely the Central Bank of India, ICICI Bank, and Laxmi Vilas Bank, have purportedly acknowledged the copy of the Will and proceeded to disburse the funds in the absence of a requisite probate.

7. The Petitioner approached this court by filing a Writ Petition/main matter against the letter dated 09.09.2019 issued by the respondent No.1/Bank and for the release of funds on the ground that the Central Bank of India has already released the funds lying in the account of the deceased, hence stating that two Nationalized Banks having pan India presence, cannot operate with two different policies. This Court vide order dated 01.11.2019 passed the following directions:

"......5. As would be evident, these objections have been raised by respondent No.1 bank vis-a-vis the