KAMILI SAROJINI Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered notice before admission on 6.7.2006. The respondent filed counter affidavit. At the request of the counsel representing the parties, the Writ Petition itself is being finally disposed of.

(2.) Sri C.Raghu, the learned counsel representing the Writ Petitioner had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and had drawn the attention of this court to paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed by the respondent and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case insisting for obtaining a probate of the Will from a competent court may not be justified. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions and would submit that in the peculiar facts of the case, at the best the respondent be directed to receive the indemnity body from the petitioner in this regard and nothing beyond thereto can be demanded by the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel representing the respondent-Indian Bank however, would maintain that the banking institution is expected to follow the procedure and hence, the respondent institution has been insisting upon the production of probate of the will from a competent court.