Smt Sucheta W/O Late Ajit Velankar Vs State Bank of India

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103929 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. SUCHETA W/O. LATE AJIT VELANKAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 80, TEJASWI NAGAR, DHARWAD 580001. PERMANENT R/O. 23, PERRY STREET, NORTH ROCKS NSW 2151, AUSTRALIA.

¶7

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL SHANTAPPA DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER HOSAYALAPUR BRANCH CODE 7964 BANASHANKARI AVENUE, DHARWAD 580001

¶10

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶11

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.P VADAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE AMOUNTS IN ACCOUNT NO. 10261339086, FIXED DEPOSITS AND PERMIT HER TO ACCESS THE LOCKERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶19

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶20

following prayer:

¶21

“1. Issue Writ in nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the amounts in Account No. 10261339086, fixed deposits and permit her to access the lockers, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶22

Issue any other writ or direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the fact and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Heard Shri Sunil Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Shri V.P. Vadavi, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶24

Owing to the submissions made by the learned

¶25

counsel for the petitioner, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed slew of orders. On 27.06.2025, the following order was passed:

¶26

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel Sri. V.P. Vadavi is directed to take notice for the respondent.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner shall take out regular service of notice to the respondent.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

List this matter for preliminary hearing on 04.07.2025.”

¶33

On 09.07.2025, the following order was passed:

¶34

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent/Bank.

¶35

2. Present petition is filed for a writ of mandamus by the petitioner/wife to release the amount in joint account bearing No.10261339086, fixed deposits and permit her to access the lockers of her late husband and late mother-in-law. The account is a joint account of her husband along with her mother-in-law namely Ajit Keshav Velankar and Smt.Velankar Shashikala K.

¶36

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank has objections in the permission being granted for withdrawal of the amount and permission to access the lockers for the reason that the account is a joint account so also the lockers.

¶37

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of petitioner Sri Ajit died on 27.07.2023 and her mother-in-law Smt.Shashikala K., had pre-deceased her husband on 17.02.2023. The husband of petitioner had left a ‘Will’ bequeathing all properties in favour of the petitioner on 08.08.2017. Petitioner claims to have applied for the Probate before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of New South Wales in respect of properties. However, in the list of properties of inventories, the estate of her husband i.e., Ajit immoveable properties in India are only mentioned and the bank details of the respondent are not mentioned. Therefore, the apprehension of the respondent/Bank is that since it is a joint account along with her late husband and Smt.Velankar Shashikala K., who is the mother of deceased-Ajit and mother-in-law of the petitioner and if there are any legal heirs other than the petitioner, they may stake a claim with at least 50%

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

of the joint account held by the mother-Smt.Velankar Shashikala K.

¶41

5. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner be permitted to take out newspaper publication depicting the details of joint account of the husband of the petitioner and mother-inlaw by clearly describing their names and anybody having claim and grievance to put forth their say. Petitioner is permitted to take out newspaper publication in the leading English and Kannada newspapers in the District Dharwad.

¶42

6. The petitioner is permitted to take out newspaper publication on or before 11.07.2025 showing the date of hearing as 25.07.2025.”

¶43

and again, on 25.07.2025, the following order was passed:

¶44

“This Court vide order dated 09.07.2025, after eliciting contentions of both petitioner and the respondent/Bank passed an interim order directing the petitioner to take out newspaper publication. Same has been taken out and published in the daily Kannada and English newspapers in Dharwad district.

¶45

2. One opportunity would have to be given to any person making a claim with regard to the 50% share in the joint account held by the mother-in-law of the petitioner. However, the remaining 50% of her husband the petitioner stakes claim and the petitioner has already obtained probate from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of New South Wales in respect of properties mentioned in the list of inventories including the immovable properties. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, if 50% of the amount of the joint bank account is released, no hardship or inconvenience would be caused to any person making any such claim in future. Under the circumstances, the respondent/Bank is directed to release

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the 50% of the amount in the joint account bearing No.10261339086 and fixed deposit with the respondent/State Bank of India in favour of the petitioner.

¶49

Other aspect of the matter would be decided on the next date of hearing.

¶50

List this matter on 06.08.2025.”

¶51

Owing to the said orders, 50% of the amount has been released in favour of the petitioner . However, the order dated 25.07.2025 is yet to be complied with, as no amount has been transferred to the account of the petitioner.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SBI vehemently opposes the petition, contending that although 50% of the amount is now ready to be released, but it does not mean that the remaining 50% should also be released in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that there could be other claimants, and it is for the petitioner to produce all necessary documents that would entitle to the petitioner to the entire amount.

¶53

Learned counsel for the respondent – SBI would further submit that the order will be complied with once all requisite details from the petitioner are made available to the bank.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Learned counsel, Shri Sunil Desai, is directed to furnish all the necessary documents.

¶58

Insofar as the remaining 50% is concerned, there is no warrant as to why the remaining 50% also should be denied on the score that the petitioner has already complied with requirement of taking out paper publication, and there are no objections or claims received as on today to the said amount. In the light of the submissions, the petitioner is stated to be the sole surviving family member entitled to the amount.

¶59

Therefore, the SBI shall, on the petitioner producing all relevant documents, release the entire amount standing to the credit of the account in favour of the petitioner without brooking any delay, on the complete documents being given by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the respondent bank. The action shall be taken within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.

¶60

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶61

VNP / CT: ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 131

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

¶66

[SMT SUCHETA W/O LATE AJIT VELANKAR VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA]

¶67

11.12.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶68

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶69

‘ORAL ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶70

The subject petition was disposed by order dated 26.11.2025. Owing to certain inadvertent typographical error, the petitioner has moved the matter for ‘being spoken to’.

¶71

The error according to the petitioner is that the mentioning of the words “ relevant documents” which ought to have been “ relevant account details” . The other omission is mentioning about not only the account, but also “the locker that is in the Bank”.

¶72

The learned counsel for the respondent would admit the omission and has no objection for the direction.

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16545 WP No. 103929 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

In that light, the paragraph No.9 shall be read as

¶77

follows:

¶78

“9. Therefore, the SBI shall, on the petitioner

¶79

producing all relevant account details, release the entire amount standing to the credit in the account in favour of the petitioner without brooking any delay as also the locker. The action shall be taken within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.”

¶80

In the light of the order being passed on consensus, this order shall be read as part and parcel of the order dated 26.11.2025 and a fresh certified copy of this order be issued to

¶81

the parties.

¶82

Sd/( M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶83

RHR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt Sucheta W/O Late Ajit Velankar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sucheta W/O Late Ajit Velankar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Chandra Mudegowdar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H P Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Jdv Holdings Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Nandeppa Manibanakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahanthesha Gurappa Gedageri S/O Gurappa Gedageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Savitribai Pawar Vs the University of Grants Commission