LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-95

PRITRAM VAMAN KARANDE Vs. SHARADA KAKASAHEB KARANDE

Decided On October 06, 1999
PRITRAM VAMAN KARANDE Appellant
V/S
SHARADA KAKASAHEB KARANDE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, nephew of the deceased Shri kakasaheb Baburao Karande has moved this petition for revocation of order dated 16th June, 1999 insofar as contents of Locker No. 604 and S. B. Account No. 014898 in the Central Bank of India, Tardeo Branch, Ground Floor, matru Mandir, 278, Jaojee Dadaji Road, Mumbai-400 007 and for a further declaration that the applicant in the present misc. Petition is entitled to get a letter of Administration as nominee in respect of the said contents of the locker and s. B. Account as mentioned above. The said petition has been opposed by the grantee i. e. Smt. Sharda Kakasaheb Karande, respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE prayers sought for are restricted in character. The revocation is sought only in respect of the locker and the S. B. Account. There is no revocation sought in respect of the entire Letters of Administration granted in favour of respondent No. 1. In support of his contention it is the plea of the petitioner that he was validly nominated as a nominee both in respect of the contents of the Locker as also the S. B. Account. In view of the section 45za of the banking Regulation Act, 1949, the petitioner, it is contended, would be entitled as a nominee to receive the contents of the locker as also the amounts standing in the s. B. Account to the exclusion of all others including any person pursuant to any disposition of property whether testamentary or otherwise. In these circumstances it is contended that the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the respondent No. 1 to the extent as prayed for must be set aside and consequently the declaration as prayed in prayer clause (b) ought to be granted.

(3.) ON the other hand on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it is contended that, there was no duty cast on the respondent No. 1 to serve the citation on the petitioner herein, considering Rule 376 of the Original Side Rules read with Form 103 and Rule 397 of the Original Side Rules. It is further contended that insofar as the nominee is concerned he merely holds the estate in favour of the real owners, who would be entitled to the estate. In support of the contention learned Counsel relies on the judgment in the case of G. L. Bhatia vs. Union of India and another, 1999 (5) SCC 237 and another judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vidya Lachhmandas Khanchandani and another vs. Vishin N. Khanchadani and another, 1999 (3)Mh. L. J. 120.