Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42495-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7235 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shweta Jain Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anil Kumar Rai,Rajnish Sahai Saxena Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Heard Shri Kripa Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the fourth- respondent and Shri Anil Kumar Rai, has appeared for the Union of India and its authorities. While entertaining the present writ petition following order was passed on 11.03.2025:- "It is argued that since the petitioner is a nominee and no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner as such disbursement of the invested amount in post office in favour of the nominee cannot be withheld. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is allowed ten days' time to obtain instructions or file an affidavit. Post as fresh, once again, on 24.03.2025 showing the name of Shri Anil Kumar Rai and Shri Rajesh Sahai Saxena as counsel for the respondents." Learned counsel for the fourth-respondent has filed a counter affidavit which is taken on record. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the fourth-respondent is the brother of the petitioner and has already filed Original Suit No.1798 of 2022 wherein prayer is to release the amount in favour of the plaintiff (fourth-respondent). Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander Talwar and Another Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and Others (2010) 10 SCC 671wherein the status of nominee has been examined and following observations are made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment which are reproduced hereinbelow:- "5. 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 the 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) 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. 6. We find that the High Court has rightly rejected the appellant's claim relying upon the decision of this Court in Vishin N. Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani (2000) 6 SCC 724. The provision under Section 6(1) of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 is materially and substantially the same as the provision of Section 45-ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the decision in Vishin N. Khanchandani (2000) 6 SCC 724 applies with full force to the facts of this case." On behalf of the petitioners it is pointed out that though the suit has been instituted in the year 2022 by the fourth-respondent but till date court fees has not been submitted and some dispute apparently is pending arising out of such issue. Be that as it may, the undisputed position as it stands today is that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased and is the nominee in the deposit certificates. In such circumstances, upon the death of the account holder the amount is liable to be released in favour of the nominee. The status of nominee has already been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the nominee has the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. In such view of the matter, we allow the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release the amount in favour of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the fourth-respondent shall be at liberty to press his injunction application in the pending suit and the amount shall be released provided no order to the contrary is passed by the competent court. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 A Gautam Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad