Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 186 (MEG)

Hunmon Rangad v. Surindra Kumar

2022-07-13

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. For an alleged violation of the order of the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong dated 31.08.2020 and 05.07.2021 respectively passed in Succession Misc. Case No. 177 of 2019 by the respondent herein, the petitioner (since deceased) has approached this Court with this application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, what can be understood is that the petitioner had applied for a Succession Certificate before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong with regard to the debts and securities of her deceased son (Late) Colin Rangad which was registered as in Succession Misc. Case No. 177 of 2019. 3. The Court vide order dated 12.03.2020 in the said case has passed an order for grant of Succession Certificate to the petitioner and the respondent bank, (Bank of Baroda, Laitumkhrah Branch) in compliance thereto had disbursed Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand) only to the petitioner out of the account of (Late) Colin Rangad. 4. The petitioner was then informed that her deceased son also had a fixed deposit account being Account No. 850203311005178 in the said bank amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs) only and accordingly, an application for an extension Succession Certificate was preferred before the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2020. 5. It is averred that the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Laitumkhrah Branch, the respondent herein has failed to comply with the order of the Court and vide order dated 05.07.2021, the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong taking note of the fact that the said Senior Branch Manager has refused to comply with the order of the Court therefore, a direction was issued as a last chance to the respondent to comply with the order, that is, to release the said sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs) with interest to the petitioner failing which the petitioner is at liberty to approach the High Court for contempt proceedings. 6. Ms. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs) with interest to the petitioner failing which the petitioner is at liberty to approach the High Court for contempt proceedings. 6. Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order dated 05.07.2021 has been passed, the respondent bank has approached the District Council Court stating that the deceased son of the petitioner had a nominee namely, Smti Sumita Rangad who is said to be his wife as regard his fixed deposit account abovementioned and that the said nominee was never informed or given notice to in connection with the application by the petitioner for grant of extended Succession Certificate. The Court vide order dated 25.08.2021 then directed for issue of notice upon the said nominee by publication. 7. It is however submitted that inspite of the continuation of the said proceedings, the Court has not passed any order to overturn the order dated 05.07.2021 and the same therefore has the force of law required to be complied with. 8. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent bank having pursued the matter to bring the nominee on the record of the proceedings before the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong, has failed to acknowledge the fact that the nominee, if there is one, is only a caretaker of the money, but not the owner of the money and the legal heir who is the petitioner is the actual beneficiary of the said debts and securities due and payable to the deceased son. 9. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent in his response, has submitted that the allegation that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed to comply with the order dated 05.07.2021 is not correct since the respondent had approached the Court of the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong with an application dated 12.08.2021 bringing to the notice of the Court the fact that the deceased (Late) Colin Rangad had a Nominee, Mrs. Sumita Rangad who is said to be his wife and as such, it would be proper if notice is issued to the said Nominee to which the Court vide order dated 25.08.2021 had directed for issue of notice by publication in two local newspapers. 10. Sumita Rangad who is said to be his wife and as such, it would be proper if notice is issued to the said Nominee to which the Court vide order dated 25.08.2021 had directed for issue of notice by publication in two local newspapers. 10. This is in compliance with the provision of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 wherein under sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 45ZA, it is provided as follows: - '45ZA. Nomination for payment of depositors' money. - (1) Where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together, may nominate, in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company, (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.' 11. However, the Court vide order dated 25.08.2021 taking note of the fact that the said Nominee could not be reached out by way of notice inspite of a number of chances given to her, it then directed the respondent herein to release the said amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs) only to the petitioner with interest accrued thereto. This, has effectively overruled the earlier order dated 05.07.2021 and as such, it cannot be said that there was a violation or non-compliance with the order dated 05.07.2021. 12. Again, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong in the same case that is Succession Misc. This, has effectively overruled the earlier order dated 05.07.2021 and as such, it cannot be said that there was a violation or non-compliance with the order dated 05.07.2021. 12. Again, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong in the same case that is Succession Misc. Case No. 177 of 2019 on an application for revocation of the Succession Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner herein which is the subject matter of the controversy herein, an order dated 28.09.2021 was passed suspending the operation of the said Succession Certificate and extended Succession Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, in view of this situation, it cannot be said that the respondent is guilty of contempt of court. This petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, it is further submitted. 13. Having considered the submission of the parties, at the outset it would be proper to look at the relevant provisions of law around which the controversy between the parties revolved. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contains definition of 'contempt of court' which means civil or criminal contempt. 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedient to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Section 10 is the provision wherein the High Court is enabled to punish contempt of subordinate courts and Section 12 is the penal provision provided for punishment for contempt of court which carries a sentence of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. For civil contempt, if the court considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice, a person may be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months. 14. Before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt, certain conditions must be satisfied, such as; (i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the court; (ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the court; and (iii) such disobedience after judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the court must be wilful. The key word here is 'wilful'. 15. The key word here is 'wilful'. 15. On an overview of the facts and circumstances of this case, what is noticed here is that the petitioner has basically approached this Court seeking punishment for contempt apparent in the conduct of the respondent who is said to have failed to comply with the order dated 05.07.2021 (supra). However, in course of proceedings, it is seen that this order has been superseded by the order dated 25.08.2021 wherein, the respondent was once again directed to release the sum due and payable to the deceased depositor to the petitioner herein. Therefore, it cannot be said that contempt will lie under such circumstances, except if the petitioner had approached this Court for any violation of the order dated 25.08.2021. 16. The respondent having brought to the notice of the court the provision under Section 45ZA of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as indicated above, which presupposes a situation that in the event of death of a depositor, the nominee becomes entitled to all the rights of said depositor, the petitioner cannot be said to be the nominee of her deceased son in the records of the bank and as such the action of the bank or rather the respondent herein to inform the court of the fact that a nominee of the deceased son of the petitioner is on record who is to be informed of her entitlement, cannot be faulted. 17. Another aspect of the matter is that the court itself vide its order dated 28.09.2021 has suspended the operation of the said succession and extended succession certificate and as such, the earlier order of 05.07.2021 has paled into insignificance. Violation of the same cannot therefore be contemplated. 18. In the light of the above findings and observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent has not committed any action to attract the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This petition therefore fails to evoke the response of this Court for exercise of power under the aforesaid provision. The same is hereby dismissed. 19. Petition disposed of. No costs.