Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, K.Rajasekar, JJ
M.Sethu – Appellant
Versus
The Manager – Respondent
W.A.(MD)No.1267 of 2025
Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, Mr.C.Karthik
The nominee designated in a fixed deposit receipt is entitled to the funds, and disputes regarding disbursement must be resolved in civil court.
Headnote:(A) Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Nominee provisions - The appellant, brother of deceased Subramanian, sought disbursement of funds deposited with the respondent Bank, which were disbursed to the nominee, Alagarsamy - The court held that the Bank acted correctly in disbursing the amount to the nominee as per the FD receipt. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Legal remedies - The court emphasized that the appellant must pursue his claim against the nominee in the appropriate civil court, as the writ petition was deemed infructuous due to prior disbursement. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a writ petition to direct the Bank to disburse funds deposited by his deceased brother, which had already been given to the nominee, Alagarsamy. The court found the petition infructuous as the Bank had acted in accordance with the nominee designation.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that the appellant must seek remedy against the nominee in civil court.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Bank was at fault for disbursing the funds to the nominee and the appropriate legal recourse for the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Bank was not at fault for disbursing the funds to the nominee as per the FD receipt, and the appellant must pursue his claim against the nominee in civil court.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The appellant herein is the brother of one Subramanian who passed away on 14.07.2024. The said Subramanian had deposited certain sum of money with the respondent Bank.
2. The appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.24199 of 2024 to direct the respondent Bank to disburse the said amount to him.
3. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 16.10.2024 holding that the Bank cannot be faulted for having disbursed the deposited amount to the nominee. One Alagarsamy had been shown as nominee in the FD receipt.
4. Since the amount in question had already been disbursed, the writ petition was infructuous at the very inception. It is for the appellant to pursue his legal remedy against Alagarsamy who had withdrawn the said amount. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is right in his contention that the nominee cannot appropriate the amount for himself. The matter has to be agitated only before the jurisdictional civil Court.
5. With the aforesaid liberty to the appellant, this writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
