Disposed

Mrs. R.Ramamani, v. the Branch Manager

Madras HC6 Oct 2015WP/29867/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition filed by legal heirs of S. Ramadurai against State Bank of India for details of his deposits was disposed of based on a compromise memo. The Court directed the Bank to furnish deposit details and facilitate payment as per the agreement.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent Bank to furnish all details of deposits held by the deceased S. Ramadurai and to disburse amounts in favour of petitioners as per the compromise memo.

Mrs. R.Ramamani, Vs the Branch Manager — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 06.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.29867 of 2012

¶6

and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012

¶7

R.Ramamani 2. Karthik R.Baradwaj

¶8

Arvind R.Bharadwaj .. Petitioners Vs. 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mylapore Branch, 46/1, Luz Church Road, Chennai - 600 004, 2. Ramjee Jagannathan, Saivilla 3rd Floor, No.7/7, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to provide all the details of deposits held by the husband of the 1st petitioner with the first respondent Bank.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Balachander For Respondents : Mr.Joseph Prabakar for R.2 No appearance for R.1

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Despite notice having been served and counter has been filed, none appears for the 1st respondent Bank. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of one S.Ramadurai (since deceased) seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to provide all the details of the deposits held by him.

¶13

When the matter is taken up for hearing, a compromise memo dated 24.8.2015 duly signed by the petitioners on the one hand and respondent No.2 on the other hand has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has also submitted that the compromise

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

memo may be recorded and as per the same, the 1st respondent may be directed to make payment in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that a fixed deposit in F.D.R.No.30250518976 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is also lying with the 1st respondent Bank. Hence, a direction may also be issued in respect of the said Fixed Deposit.

¶16

The compromise memo dated 24.8.2015 entered between the petitioners and 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder:

¶17

''1. The above Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the deceased late S.Ramadurai and to direct the First Respondent Bank to pay all the amounts lying to the credit of the deceased S.Ramadurai to the Petitioners who are the legal heirs of the afore said deceased and to restrain the First Respondent from disbursing the funds to the nominee or Joint Account Holder.

¶18

During the pendeny of the proceedings, the Petitioner and the Second Respondent mutually agreed for a compromise to settle the disputes between them over the funds of the deceased Mr.S.Ramadurai on the following terms.

¶19

i) The Second Respondent who has been made a joint account holder/ nominee by the aforesaid deceased in the following deposits admits that the said amounts belong to the aforesaid deceased and he has no objection for the said sums along with accrued interest till date be paid over to the Petitioner as they are the only legal heirs of the aforesaid deceased and are entitled to the same on the death of the deceased Mr.S.Ramadurai and the details of the said Fixed Deposits are as under

¶20

Sl. Fixed Deposit Amount Date of No. Deposit 1. F.D.NO.30174041795 Rs.3,00,000 13.05.2007 /- 2. F.D.NO.30196109624 Rs.5,00,000 27.06.2007 /- 3. F.D.NO.30196110142 Rs.5,00,000 27.06.2007 /-

¶21

ii) The second respondent also state that apart from the above fixed deposits stated supra, he has no objection for the petitioners to withdraw the amounts lying to the credit of the deceased in any other Fixed deposits made in either State Bank of India or any other bank/s in which the deceased has made the 2nd respondent either as nominee/joint account holder, the 2nd respondent has no objection

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

for these amounts to be taken by the petitioners.

¶24

iii) The Second Respondent also agrees that he has no objection for payment of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased in SB A/c. 10476624648 along with accrued interest thereon maintained with the First Respondent as on date, since they are legal heirs and are entitled to the same.

¶25

iv) The Second Respondent hereby agrees he has no objection for payment of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased in PPF A/c bearing No.10416643707 along with accrued interest thereon maintained with the First Respondent be paid to the petitioner as they are the legal heirs entitled to the same.

¶26

v) The Petitioners hereby agree that they shall not make any claim/ demand over the withdrawal of the sums of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) made by the Second Respondent from the SB A/c No.10476624648 on 07.06.2010 in future since the Second Respondent has come forward to amicably settle the sums lying to the credit of the deceased and also withdraw the allegations made against the Second Respondent.

¶27

vi) The Second Respondent also agrees to handover all the Records and personal belongings of the deceased to the petitioners which are in his possession, if any.

¶28

vii) Both the parties agree and undertake that they will not make any rival claim against each other either individually or jointly in future before any court of law with respect to the amounts belonging to the deceased Ramadurai.

¶29

It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take the compromise memo on record and pass suitable orders and thus render justice.''

¶30

In the counter affidavit filed also, the 1st respondent Bank has stated that the particulars would be given if appropriate directions are issued by this Court in this regard.

¶31

In view of the subsequent developments, there is no difficulty in directing the 1st respondent to furnish all the details of deposits held by the deceased S.Ramadurai.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent Bank to furnish all the details of the amounts lying in the accounts/fixed deposits of the deceased S.Ramadurai to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall take

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

appropriate steps on the request of the petitioners to disburse the amounts as per the compromise memo filed by the petitioners on the one hand and the 2nd respondent on the other hand. The above directions are also applicable in respect of the fixed deposit in F.D.R.No.30250518976 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CO) dt:13/10/2015

¶36

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
usk
To
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Mylapore Branch,
46/1, Luz Church Road,
Chennai - 600 004,
+1 cc to Mr.J.Balachander Advocate sr.54137
+1 cc to Mr.Joseph Prabakar Advocate sr.54387
W.P.No.29867 of 2012
ad(co)
aa14/10/2015

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs. R.Ramamani, v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. R.Ramamani, v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvarajan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Selvarajan Vs the District Revenue Officer

B.Ganesh Prabhu Vs United Bank of India

J.M.S. College of Education, Vs The Registrar

A.Ganesh Vs The Registrar

P.Sharadha Vs The Commissioner of Survey