Disposed

Birendra Kumar Nagpal v. Uco Bank

Orissa HC10 Oct 2022WP(C)/9585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner a beneficiary under a registered will approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking disbursement of funds held by the bank of the testatrix after she died. The court directed the bank to obtain a certified copy of the will for comparison within two weeks and subsequently disburse the money.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce certified copy of will within two weeks for comparison; Bank to disburse funds thereafter.

Birendra Kumar Nagpal Vs Uco Bank — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

// 1 //

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No.9585 of 2022 (Through hybrid mode)

¶4

Birendra Kumar Nagpal

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Ms. Monika Samal, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

UCO Bank and another

¶9

…. Opposite Parties

¶10

Mr. B. N. Udgata, Advocate

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

10.10.2022

Order No.

04. 1. Ms. Samal, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client is beneficiary of registered will dated 19^th July, 2017. He sought disbursement of money lying with the bank of the testatrix, since deceased. On not getting it the writ petition was filed.

¶16

2. Mr. Udgata, learned advocate appears on behalf of the bank and submits, necessary document regarding proof of will by probate was not furnished by petitioner.

¶17

3. Rejoinder has been filed. In paragraph 5 there is reference to judgment dated 24^th July, 2019 made by the Supreme Court in Civil

¶18

Appeal no.5823 of 2019 (Kanta Yadav vs. Om Prakash Yadav and

¶19

others) declaring the law on wills and codicils made by any Hindu,

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, who was subject to the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or the local limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Madras or Bombay, to require obtaining probate. She submits, Jharsuguda does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal nor the High Courts’ of Madras and Bombay.

¶23

4. The bank already has submitted to it, copy of the registered will. It may require petitioner to produce the certified copy for purpose of comparison, to ascertain that the copy submitted is the true copy. Thereupon the bank will return the certified copy to petitioner and forthwith disburse money lying in account(s) of the deceased testatrix, to petitioner.

¶24

5. The exercise is to be completed within two weeks of

¶25

communication. Petitioner will comply with all other requirements.

¶26

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶28

Prasant

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Birendra Kumar Nagpal v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Kumar Nagpal v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Metaliks Ltd., Keonjhar Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kolkata

Kumari Patra Vs Branch Manager, Sbi, Humma Branch

M/S.Maa Tarini Medical Hall Vs State of Odisha

Radharani Patra Vs Union of India

Gita Gantayata Vs Zonal Manager, Uco Bank, Bbsr

Satyanarayan Bisoyi Vs State of Odisha