Allahabad High Court
HEMANT KUMAR MISHRAversusUNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH MUMFORDGANJ BRANCH
- Decided
Holding
The bank must release the amounts in the specified FDRs to the petitioners, who are the nominees, upon production of the original FDRs, subject to a trust pending any final succession order.
Summary
The petitioners, nominees of the deceased Ms. Suraksha Rani Bhatia, sought a writ of mandamus directing Union Bank of India to release the amounts lying in four Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in their favour. The bank contended that the petitioners were not the original FDR holders and raised a pending succession claim by a relative, which had been withdrawn. The Court observed that an identical controversy had already been decided by a coordinate bench in Writ‑C No. 41649 of 2025 and related orders, which directed banks to disburse FDR amounts to nominees upon production of the original documents, subject to a trust arrangement pending any final succession decree. Relying on those precedents and Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Court ordered the bank to release the funds to the petitioners. The petition was consequently disposed of in accordance with the earlier judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether nominees of a deceased account holder are entitled to claim and receive the amounts in Fixed Deposit Receipts.
- Whether the bank is obligated to release the FDR amounts despite a pending succession claim.
- Whether Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, governs the release of such funds.
Legislation cited
- Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — s. 45ZA
Subjects
- Nominee rights
- Fixed Deposit Receipt
- Banking Regulation Act
- Section 45ZA
- Succession
- Mandamus
- Article 226
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 42382 of 2025
Hemant Kumar Mishra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Bank Of India, Branch Mumfordganj Branch
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anwar Hussain, Ashish Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Bajpai, Ashish Agrawal, Gautam,
Manoj Kumar Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-
Respondents and perused the record.
2. It is admitted between the learned counsel for the parties that identical
controversy has already been decided by coordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ-C No. 41649 of 2025, Vandana Babbar and another Vs. Punjab
National of India vide judgement and order dated 25.03.2026. The said order
reads as under:-
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the name and
style of respondent No.- 1 in the array of the parties forthwith.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for following relief:
"A. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding and directing upon the
respondent bank to accept and release the amount of money in the FDR
Nos. 070900PU00030073, 070900DP00021641, 070900PU00072486 and
070900DP00019664 in favour of the petitioners, who are the registered
nominees of the deceased bank account holder, i.e. late Ms. Suraksha
Rani Bhatia."
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in an identical set
of facts this Court has disposed of the case of Vandana Babbar and
another v. Central Bank of India, Through its Branch Manager, Sadar
Bazar Branch in Writ - C No.- 1714 of 2026 decided on 17th April, 2026
relying upon the order passed in Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025. The order
passed by this Court in Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025 is reproduced
hereunder:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the
respondent-bank.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners whose grievance
WRIC No. 42382 of 2025
2
is that though they are nominees to the account of the deceased where
four FDRs in favour of the petitioners herein as enumerated in paragraph
no.2 of the petition at page 4, are lying with the bank and after passing
away of the account holder Suraksha Rani Bhatia, the same has not been
released in favour of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that there is
succession case that has been filed by Vivek Bhatia, nephew of the
deceased which he subsequently withdrew. The said Vivek Bhatia was
claiming his interest in the property on the basis of the Will allegedly
executed by the deceased.
4. Be that as it may, the same notwithstanding, the respondent - Bank is
directed to forthwith disburse the amount shown in the FDRs in favour of
the petitioners, upon the petitioners producing the original FDRs. On the
date when FDRs are presented to the respondent - bank after due
verification of the nominees shall release the amount in favour of the
petitioners. The petitioners shall hold the amount in trust subject to final
settlement taking place on a subsequent date or subject to any order
passed by a court of the competent jurisdiction in any succession case /
testamentary case.
5. With the above, the present writ petition stands disposed off."
5. Per contra, it is submitted by Ms. Sudha Pandey, learned counsel for
the respondent - bank that although the bank has no objection to the order
proposed to be passed but the fact is that petitioners are not the original
FDR holders but the nominees.
6. Upon a pointed query being made learned counsel for the petitioner
states that since the original FDR holders had died therefore, the
nominees have the right to present their claim for getting the FDR lying in
the bank liquidated.
7. Ms. Divya Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjeev
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent states that she has also
no objection in the event petition is disposed of in terms of the order
passed on Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order
passed in Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025. Additionally providing that in the
matter of payment against the FDRs the Section 45ZA of Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 and other relevant bank rules shall be followed."
3. Since the controversy involved in the present case is identical to the
controversy involved in the aforesaid case, the present writ petition is also
disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.
September 29, 2026
Gaurav Kuls
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…