Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 86 - HC - Indian LawsDistribution of estate of deceased's investments - Nomination of FDs in favor of Daughter - whether such nominated assets to be excluded from the estate of the deceased - Whether or not the daughter is entitled to file and maintain a caveat in opposition to the probate petition - Whether this caveat must be held to be defective and non-est - Whether 'Will' have supremacy over nomination - Held that:- The decision in Kokate does not consider the decisions of the Supreme Court in Khanchandani [2000 (8) TMI 77 - SUPREME Court], Shipra Sengupta [2009 (8) TMI 1124 - SUPREME COURT] or Challamma [2009 (7) TMI 1213 - SUPREME COURT], or those of learned single Judges of this Court in Nozer Gustad Commissariat and Antonio Joao Fernandes. Each one of these was binding on the Kokate court. The view taken in Kokate is contrary to, and does not consider any of these. It is, for that reason, per incuriam. In short, a nomination, in the Kokate formulation, is some sort of ‘super-will’, one that partakes of none of the defining traits of a properly executed will and none of the tests of its validity, one that is never displaced by a later, properly made will that deals with the very same property. Mr. Pai asks that we should place ourselves in the ‘armchair of the nominator’. That, as it happens, is the same furniture used by a testator, and it simply cannot be that the view from that seat depends on the nature of the document before the executant. There is no particular form for a will, but there are requirements attendant to its proper making. These do not apply to all nominations: even the requirement of witnesses is a matter of prudence rather than statute. If that be so, no nomination per se requires attestation, and if that be so, it is admissible in evidence under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 without the evidence of any witness (simply because a witness to a nomination is not, in any sense, an ‘attesting witness’). But no will can be so read in evidence without such evidence. From the fundamental definitions to the decisions cited, it is clear that a nomination only provides the company or the depository a quittance. The nominee continues to hold the securities in trust and as a fiduciary for the claimants under the succession law. Nominations under Sections 109A and 109B of the Companies Act and Bye-Law 9.11 of the Depositories Act, 1996 cannot and do not displace the law of succession, nor do they open a third line of succession. This is the consistent view of the Supreme Court in Khanchandai [2000 (8) TMI 77 - SUPREME Court], Shipra Sengupta [2009 (8) TMI 1124 - SUPREME COURT], all decisions that preceded Kokate; and the submission made in paragraph 9 of Kokate was correctly placed and was in line with those decisions. Those decisions were all binding on the Kokate Court. They were neither noticed nor considered. The Kokate Court could not have taken a view contrary to those decisions. Kokate is, therefore, per incuriam. - This judgment does not dispose of the Notice of Motion in Salgaonkar or the application in Ghatalia. Those will be considered on their merits in view of the legal position enunciated above. Given that this judgment deals only with a question of law, there is no question of a stay of the judgment.
|