LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-95

SHASHIKALA KAKODKAR Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Decided On April 15, 2004
SHASHIKALA KAKODKAR Appellant
V/S
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1, the Reserve Bank of India, to transfer 9% Government of India Relief Bonds, 1987, standing in the name of the late Sunandabai Dayanand Bandodkar, in the name of the petitioners, without insisting upon the probate or letters of administration to her last will and testament dated 1st April, 1985, or without insisting on a succession certificate.

(2.) THE 9% Government of India Relief Bonds in question (hereinafter referred to as "the said bonds"), are issued as Government security under Section 1-A of the Public Debt Act, 1944. By virtue of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Laws) Regulation, 1962, the provisions of the Public Debt Act, 1944 apply to the State of Goa. Section 7 of the Public Debt Act,1944, reads as under:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to Section 12 of the Public Debt Act, 1944, which provides that where a doubt exists as to the title to the Government security, the Government may proceed to determine the person who would be entitled thereto. In our opinion, Section 12 of the Public Debt Act applies where a doubt exists as to the original title of Government security, or where two or more persons make a sole claim thereto on the basis of transfer inter vivos, where such transfer is permissible. It does not cover a case of inheritance or succession to a government security which is governed by Section 7 of the Public Debt Act. Furthermore, Section 12 is an empowering Section which enables the respondents to determine the claim as to title. It does not compel the respondents to determine the claim in every case. It is open to the Government either to determine the claim by itself by virtue of Section 12, or to require the adjudication at the hands of a competent Court. Therefore, assuming that Section 12 applies even in respect of claim of succession, in our opinion, it is not obligatory for the respondents to determine the claim under Section 12.