ORDER :

1. The scope of the above writ petition and the stand taken by respondents 3 and 4 were captured by this Court in the earlier order passed on 15.7.2025 and it is extracted as hereunder :

“1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 05.01.2019 issued by the fourth respondent and for a direction to the fourth respondent to make over to the petitioner all the funds that are lying to the credit of late Sri Sushil Mazumdar @ Swami Satyananda at the fourth respondent bank.

2. The case of the petitioner is that Sri Sushil Mazumdar @ Swami Satyananda was a spiritual master, who dedicated his life to spiritual teaching and fostering inter-religious dialogue between the East and West. In the year 1976, he found the Sadhana Ashram, which is an international centre for spiritual and cultural research. This Sadhana Ashram was established in Italy. The petitioner, who is an Italian national, was the President of Sadhana Ashram from 03.09.2005 to 03.09.2010 and he continues as a member of the Executive Committee of the Sadhana Ashram.

3. The above said Sri Sushil Mazumdar @ Swami Satyananda held large investments with the State Bank of India viz., fourth respondent. Approximately, Rs.4,75,12,600/- was lying in the bank account. The petitioner was named as a nominee for all these investments with the fourth respondent. The relevant formats as required under the Banking Regulation Act and the rules thereunder was also submitted by the Sri Sushil Mazumdar @ Swami Satyananda in the year 2006 to the fourth respondent bank.

4. The above said Sri Sushil Mazumdar @ Swami Satyananda passed away in Tibet on 18.09.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the fourth respondent requesting them to transfer the amount in accordance with the wishes of Sri Sushil Mazumdar @ Swami Satyananda in the petitioner's capacity as nominee.

5. The petitioner received a communication dated 25.04.2008 from the fourth respondent informing that all the papers have been forwarded to the Controlling Officer. Certain clarification was also sought for. The communication was going back and forth between the petitioner and the fourth respondent bank. Whenever any clarification is sought for, it was clarified by the petitioner and the petitioner was also directed to open a NRO account and the petitioner also complied with the said demand. Ultimately, the fourth respondent did not come up with any speedy solution and hence, the petitioner approached the banking ombudsman with a complaint. On receipt of the same, the impugned communication dated 05.01.2019 came to be issued to the petitioner stating that the nomination has not been properly executed and various reasons were given and the petitioner was advised to approach the competent Court.

6. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the affidavit are extracted hereunder:

‘8. I state that the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, in November, 2018 and his complaint was number as C-1412. The Banking Ombudsman also rejected the claim of the petitioner. The respondent bank submitted its version to the Banking Ombudsman stating that the nomination forms are blank with regard to deposit to which the nomination is given and the signature of the deposits in two nomination is not tallying and further submitted that the petitioner should obtain legal representation from the competent court for settling the deceased's deposits lying with the bank. The Banking Ombudsman after verifying the complaint and the bank's reply, rejected the petitioner's complaint and agreed with the reasoning given by the 4th respondent.

9. I state that the petitioner also admitted in the writ petition that he is an Italian National and have been the President of the Sadhananda Asharam, which is promoted and founded by Mr.Sushil Majundar @ Sathiananda from 3.9.2005 to 3.9.2010 and continue as a Member of the Executive Committee of t