1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/389/2025 Smti. Majda Begum Vs. The Branch Manager Ms. A. S. Zinu …. for the petitioner Mr. Subhankar Halder … for the respondent no.1 Mr. U. Partha Sarathi … for the added respondent February 02, 2026 [SR] Item No.17 The petitioner is the wife of one Laik Ali, since deceased. It appears that the deceased had deposited certain sums of money in a bank account that he opened in his name with Punjab National Bank, 144, JN Road, Goal Ghjar, Port Blair Branch. It further appears that he had named the added respondent herein as the nominee in respect of the said bank account. The said Laik Ali passed away on September 11, 2021. As on that date, a sum approximately Rs.22.08 lakhs was lying in the concerned bank account. The petitioner obtained a succession certificate from the competent Court and staked her claim to the money lying in the aforesaid bank account. The bank refused to accede to her request. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court. 2 Initially, the nominee was not a party to this writ petition. Pursuant to this Court’s order the nominee was added as a respondent. Learned advocate for the added respondent relies on Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which reads as follows: “45-ZA (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.” He says that under the aforesaid provisions, the Punjab National Bank is under a statutory mandate to hand over the money lying in the aforesaid account to the nominee. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Talwar and another vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and Others reported at (2010) 10 SCC 671. In particular learned counsel relied on paragraph 5 of the reported judgment which reads as follows: “Section 45-ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as he depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Section 45-ZA(2) 3 would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed.” Per contra, learned advocate for the added respondent refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered on January 07, 2026, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No.71438/2025 (The Union of India and another vs. Paresh Chandra Mondal). In particular, he places reliance on paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment which read as follows: “13.Consequently, this Court is of the view that in cases of valid nomination, the amount in the provident fund account of the deceased depositor or subscriber is required to be released to the nominee. 14. The opinion of this Court is strengthened by the sett led position of law that a nominee is a mere trustee to collect the funds and not the beneficial owner [Sarbati Devi vs. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424]. Therefore, the mere fact that the amount is released to a valid nominee will not bar the objector (s) or holder (s) of probate or letters of administration or succession certificate from claiming their share from the amount released to the nominee from a competent Court.” Although the decision in Paresh Chandra Mondal (Supra) does not discuss section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the ratio of the decision appears to be that the provident fund authorities would obtain full discharge by handing over the dues of a deceased to the nominee of the deceased. Reading this decision together the decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the appropriate course of action would be for the Punjab National Bank to hand over the money lying in the concerned bank 4 account to the added respondent herein. Let that be done within two weeks from date. The added respondent shall not deal with such money for a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the money from the Punjab National Bank. In the meantime, the petitioner will be liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum on the strength of the succession certificate which she has obtained staking her claim to the money received by the respondent no.2 as nominee of the deceased person. WPA/389/2025 is disposed of. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )