STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. KALYAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application is directed against Order No. 20 dated 13th of June, 1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Act 39 Case No. 12 of 1989. It is a somewhat uncommon case, where one Ranjit Kumar Mukherjee, since deceased, appointed the State Bank of India as executor of his will, although be had legal heirs and successors. When the probate of the Will was applied for, the application which was signed by the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, had been rejected by the impugned order by the learned District Judge upon a finding that the authorisation disclosed did not entitle the Deputy General Manager to sign and verify such application. The legal heirs and successors of the deceased have been impleaded as parties to the Revisional application and all of them have been served with the notice of the application which is indicated by the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no appearance to contest the Revisional application on behalf of any of such opposite parties.

(2.) Since the matter is somewhat uncommon, Mr. Roy, appearing in support of the application has taken pains to bring all statutory provisions to our notice for our conviction. It appears that in terms of section 33 of the STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955, the State Bank has authority to carry on business of banking as defined in clause (b) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act and also one or more of the other forms of business specified in section 6(1) of that Act viz., Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 6(1) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 authorises the bank to act as executor. Section 17 of the STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955 vests the power of general superintendence and direction of the affairs and business of the State Bank in the Central Board of the said bank section 50(1) empowers the Central Board to frame regulations to provide for matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955. Sub-section (2) of the said section by its clause (m) includes the conduct and defence of legal proceedings and the manner of signing pleadings as one of the matters for which regulation, may be framed and in exercise of such powers vested by section 50 of the STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955, Regulation 76 has been framed by the said bank, embodying authorisation for signing different documents by bank officials and list of such officials may includes the officers covered by the notification issued by the bank. The notification to which the learned District Judge has referred in the impugned order, vests in some of the officers, including all officers in the grade of SMGS IV within which category the Deputy General Manager, who is signatory in the instant case to the application for probate, falls. In view of the above position in law, the impugned order of the learned District Judge dearly suffers from an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and is accordingly liable to be set aside.

(3.) The Revisional application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The probate application, as signed by the Deputy General Manager, be treated to have been properly signed and the learned District Judge, who is in charge of the proceeding, is directed to proceed with the same, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.