IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement of a nominee under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the effect of subsequent court orders on the enforcement of previous orders.

JUDGMENT

1. For an alleged violation of the order of the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong dated 31.08.2020 and 05.07.2021 respectively passed in Succession Misc. Case No. 177 of 2019 by the respondent herein, the petitioner (since deceased) has approached this Court with this application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, what can be understood is that the petitioner had applied for a Succession Certificate before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong with regard to the debts and securities of her deceased son (Late) Colin Rangad which was registered as in Succession Misc. Case No. 177 of 2019.

3. The Court vide order dated 12.03.2020 in the said case has passed an order for grant of Succession Certificate to the petitioner and the respondent bank, (Bank of Baroda, Laitumkhrah Branch) in compliance thereto had disbursed Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand) only to the petitioner out of the account of (Late) Colin Rangad.

4. The petitioner was then informed that her deceased son also had a fixed deposit account being Account No. 850203311005178 in the said bank amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs) only and accordingly, an application for an extension Succession Certificate was preferred before the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2020.

5. It is averred that the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Laitumkhrah Branch, the respondent herein has failed to comply with the order of the Court and vide order dated 05.07.2021, the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong taking note of the fact that the said Senior Branch Manager has refused to comply with the order of the Court therefore, a direction was issued as a last chance to the respondent to comply with the order, that is, to release the said sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs) with interest to the petitioner failing which the petitioner is at liberty to approach the High Court for contempt proceedings.

6. Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order dated 05.07.2021 has been passed, the respondent bank has approached the District Council Court stating that the deceased son of the petitioner had a nominee namely, Smti Sumita Rangad who is said to be his wife as regard his fixed deposit account abovementioned and that the said nominee was never informed or given notice to in connection with the application by the petitioner for grant of extended Succession Certificate. The Court vide order dated 25.08.2021 then directed for issue of notice upon the said nominee by publication.

7. It is however submitted that inspite of the continuation of the said proceedings, the Court has not passed any order to overturn the order dated 05.07.2021 and the same therefore has the force of law required to be complied with.

8. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent bank having pursued the matter to bring the nominee on the record of the proceedings before the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong, has failed to acknowledge the fact that the nominee, if there is one, is only a caretaker of the money, but not the owner of the money and the legal heir who is the petitioner is the actual beneficiary of the said debts and securities due and payable to the deceased son.

9. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent in his response, has submitted that the allegation that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed to comply with the order dated 05.07.2021 is not correct since the respondent had approached the Court of the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong with an application dated 12.08.2021 bringing to the notice of the Court the fact that the deceased (Late) Colin Rangad had a Nominee, Mrs. Sumita Rangad who is said to be his wife and as such, it would be proper if notice is issued to the said Nominee to which the Court vide order dated 25.08.