IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-32190-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 CHAND RANI KAURA -PETITIONER V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Jain, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, and Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Jyoti Chaudhary, Sr.Panel Counsel, for respondent no.1-UOI.

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Tarlok Singh, Advocate, for respondents no.2 to 4.

Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents no.5 and 6.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. It is a case, wherein unfortunate events have unfolded as a lady of 88 years, who is aggrieved with the conduct of her own daughter and son, is running from pillar to post to get her own amount which is lying with the respondent-Bank in the shape of FDRs.

2. The averments as encapsulated through the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of mandamus, are that the respondents no.2 to 4-Bank, are not allowing the petitioner to withdraw her amount, as deposited in Fixed Deposits (FDRs).

3. The petitioner, asserts that she holds number of bank accounts as well as FDRs with the respondents no.2 to 4-Bank. The husband of the present petitioner, unfortunately died on dated 08.07.2024, and to perform the last rites of her husband, she came to India, alongwith her son, Sanjiv Kumar, i.e. respondent no.6.

4. The petitioner visited the respondents no.2 to 4-Bank for withdrawal of certain amount for donations, and for this purpose both private respondents no.5 and 6 accompanied her and she withdrew some amount on dated 12.09.2024, and 18.09.2024. After performing the last rites of her husband, the petitioner went back to USA, alongwith her son (respondent no.6).

5. The petitioner, since the time, she left India, she was asking for the statement of accounts, from her son, and furthermore, she also telephonically asked for the same, to the officials of respondents-Bank. She became suspicious, not only about the conduct of respondents-Bank, but also will the conduct of both her daughter, as well as son (respondents no.5 and 6 respectively). Subsequently, she came to know that by playing fraud, both respondents no.5 and 6, got added their names as nominee with the petitioner, and only then the petitioner came to know about the reasons for denying the requisite informations about her Bank Account/FDR's

6. Thereafter, the petitioner again came to India, and tried to encash the amounts of FDRs, and/or to delete/remove the names of respondents no.5 and 6 as nominee, which were added without her consent, by deploying the methods of fraud.

7. What further reflects from a perusal of the instant petition, is that a huge amount i.e. about Rs.11,65,00,000/-, is lying deposited in 20 FDRs, and out of these 20 FDRs, respondent no.5 got her name added in 4 FDRs as nominee, and in remaining 16 FDRs, respondent no.6 got his name added as a nominee.

8. Upon notice, a detailed reply has been filed by respondents no.5 and 6, and therein, they maintained a stand that it is infact the petitioner, who voluntarily got admitted their names in the said FDRs, as nominees. Therefore, the petitioner can now only withdraw the amounts in the FDRs, with their consent, and they do not have any intention to give any concurrence to the petitioner to withdraw the amounts.

9. The sole legal objection was taken by respondents no.5 and 6, is the pendency of a civil suit, which was preferred by them before the learned Civil Court, at SBS Nagar, and even the interim stay, has been granted in their favour.

10. Though learned counsel for the petitioner, made vociferous attempt to convince this Court to pass the asked for mandamus, however, solely on account of pendency of the civil suit, this Court refrains itself to exercise its power to pass a mandamus upon the respondents-Banks, to release the amounts in the FDRs, in favour of the present petitioner