Judgment 1. Petitioner No. 1 is widow of Navin Kumar Jhunjhunwaia, who has filed this application for a direction to the respondents National Securities Depository Limited (hereinafter referred to as the N.S.D.) and the Stock Holding Corporation of India for transmission of ail the shares deposited in the name of her husband in her DEMAT Account bearing no. Client ID 13184662. Petitioners husband was having various shares and stocks deposited with the respondents under the DEMAT account. He died prematurely on 27.6.2005 leaving behind his wife, petitioner no. 1 and one minor son. The petitioner no. 2 is mother of Late Navin Kumar Jhunjhunwala and she has also joined as petitioner no. 2 in this writ application in order to show that other family members have no objection in case shares of Navin Kumar Jhunjhunwala is transmitted in the DEMAT account of petitioner no. 1. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 26 of the Depository Act, 1996 N.S.D. Limited has made bylaws which have been approved by the Exchange Board of India. These by-laws are called by-laws of NSD Limited. The Board of Directors of Executive Committee of N.S.D. has formulated business rule for the functioning and operation of the depository rules and to regulate the functioning in operation of the participant of the depository. Rule 12.6.2.2. relates to account transfer in case of transmission. The provision under this rule is "The legal heir(s) or the legal representative(s) of such securities shall make an application to the participant in the form specified in Annexure O alongwith the following documents:(i) A copy of the death certificate duly notarised, (ii) A copy of the succession certificate duly notarised or an order of court of competent jurisdiction where the deceased has not left a will, or (iii) A copy of the probate or letter of administration duly notarised." 3. Petitioner No. 1 applied for transmission of the shares deposited in the name of her husband in her DEMAT account on 6.5.2006. Alongwith transmission application she filed affidavit that she is legal heirs of her late husband and entitled to receive the shares from respondents. Alongwith her application she submitted a deed of indemnity executed in favour of respondent no. Petitioner No. 1 applied for transmission of the shares deposited in the name of her husband in her DEMAT account on 6.5.2006. Alongwith transmission application she filed affidavit that she is legal heirs of her late husband and entitled to receive the shares from respondents. Alongwith her application she submitted a deed of indemnity executed in favour of respondent no. 1, Bankers verification and no objection by the father-in-law Gopi Krishna Jhunjhunwala, mother-in-law, brothers-in-laws, sister-in-laws and arbitration award, awarded under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the arbitration tribunal. Alongwith her application in Annexure-0 she did not file a copy of succession certificate duly notarised as per the N.S.D.L. business Rule 12.6.2.2. objection was raised by respondent no. 1 N.S.D. Ltd. as the succession certificate duly notarised was not annexed with the transmission application instead arbitration award, which is an order/decree of a accourt of competent jurisdiction under sec. 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Counsel for the petitioners states that the requirement as per Rule 12.6.2.2 for transmission of the shares in the name of legal heirs is that a copy of duly notarised succession certificate or an order of court of competent jurisdiction be annexed when there is no nomination in favour of application or deceased has not left the will. The petitioners in place of succession certificate has annexed the award of the arbitration tribunal which is a decree under sec. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner as such has duly complied the second part of the requirement i.e. an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The N.S.D. Limited should have transmitted and transferred the shares of her late husband in her DEMAT account. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if any requirement is mentioned under any provision of the law it is for the benefit of the concerned person and it should never be used as a tool for harassing such persons for whose benefit the provision has been made. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 2003(3) S.C.C. 272 Paragraph 26. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of N.S.D.L. respondent no. 1 questioning the maintainability of the writ application. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 2003(3) S.C.C. 272 Paragraph 26. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of N.S.D.L. respondent no. 1 questioning the maintainability of the writ application. It has been stated that the prayer of the petitioner in the writ application is for a direction to effect transmission of shares which are held in the beneficial owner account standing in the name of Navin Kumar Jhunjhunwala, late deceased husband of petitioner no. 1. This is a matter exclusively relating to succession. Petitioner No. 1 should have taken steps for grant of succession to the estate of her husband and for that reliefs writ is not maintainable as it is not a constitutional matter. I find no substance in the statement as the respondent no. 1 is statutory body and in case any legal right is being infringed, application can be filed under writ jurisdiction for direction to the respondents. 6. Another objection which has been raised by respondent no. 1 is that the arbitration award relating to family settlement cannot override the provision under the Indian Succession Act. This award however can be helpful to petitioner no. 1 for obtaining succession certificate under the provisions of Sec. 370 of the Indian Suecession Act. The N.S.D.L. business Rule 12.6.2.2. deals with the right of legal heirs or legal representative of the sole client. This rule requires productions of duly notarised copy of succession certificate or order issued by competent court where the deceased has left no will. Here the order issued by the competent court means that in case an application has been filed for succession and before issuance of succession certificate if an order is passed by the competent court in this regard, that order can be annexed with the transmission application. The order of competent court is not meant the order passed by the arbitration tribunal in arbitration matter. The order must relate to succession and not for partition of the property or allocation of shares of the cosharers in a joint family. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the respondent no. 1 that this rule is being followed strictly for the benefit of the share holders. The order must relate to succession and not for partition of the property or allocation of shares of the cosharers in a joint family. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the respondent no. 1 that this rule is being followed strictly for the benefit of the share holders. Earlier provision relating to succession certificate was not there but through amendment it has been brought in order to regulate transmissions of schools in favour of right person, in case of death of a share holder. Further it has been submitted that in case this court directs for transmitting the shares of the late husband of petitioner no. 1 in her DEMAT account without fulfilling the requirement as per Rule 12.6.2.2. of N.S.D.L. Rules, i.e. without furnishing succession certificate or order of the competent court in this respect, it will open a flood gate and no one would like to produce succession certificate for this purpose. This will create a confusion and chaos and probability will be that the shares in future may be transmitted on the basis of such arbitration award in favour of wrong persons. 7. So far the apprehension of the counsel representing respondent no. 1 is concerned I find substance in it. Earlier there was no such provision under Rule 12.6.2.2. for production of succession certificate in case of transmission of the shares. It was brought through amendment as some necessity would have been felt by the members of the Executive Committee in this regard. Apprehension of the counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 is not unjustified. Rightly he has submitted that there should not be relaxation in the rule. But there is another aspect which also needs consideration. This aspect is whether any rule should be made so stringent that it may come in way of the dispensation of justice. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per rule 12.6.2.2. in case of non-production of succession certificate, an order of court of competent jurisdiction, will also cover the arbitration award of the arbitration tribunal, is not convincing. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12.6.2.2. refers about the succession certificate duly notarised or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per rule 12.6.2.2. in case of non-production of succession certificate, an order of court of competent jurisdiction, will also cover the arbitration award of the arbitration tribunal, is not convincing. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12.6.2.2. refers about the succession certificate duly notarised or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Here an order of a court of competent jurisdiction indicates an order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in the matters relating to succession in such cases where at the time of filing application for transmission of shares, succession certificate has not been issued. Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has rightly advanced his argument that award of arbitration tribunal does not come within the purview of this rule. So far the arbitration award is concerned it relates to shares of petitioner no. 1 and other family members in the joint family property, it cannot be treated as succession certificate or an order passed by a competent court in this regard. The award of the arbitration tribunal cannot be a substitute for succession certificate. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has also submitted that the property of Hindu male devolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in the present case the requirement of succession certificate cannot be relaxed. 9. I find that there is specific rule which requires succession certificate that cannot be substitute by an award of arbitrator in the teeth of statutory provision. 10. Petitioner No. 1 is a widow. In the writ application she has very specifically stated that after her husbands death she has been left with no other source of income and she has to reside with her parents in order to meet her day to day necessity. The case of the petitioner can be taken as special case without relaxing the rules. Accordingly respondent no. 1 is directed to transmit the shares of late husband of petitioner no. 1 in the DEMAT account of petitioner no. 1, in case she executes a bond of indemnity in favour of respondent no. 1. 11. However, the petitioner no. 1 is directed to produce succession certificate within one year of the transmission of such shares in her favour. In case succession certificate is not produced within this period the respondent no. 1 in the DEMAT account of petitioner no. 1, in case she executes a bond of indemnity in favour of respondent no. 1. 11. However, the petitioner no. 1 is directed to produce succession certificate within one year of the transmission of such shares in her favour. In case succession certificate is not produced within this period the respondent no. 1 will have liberty to indemnify the bond executed by petitioner no. 1. 12. Accordingly this application is allowed.