WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 (Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Hemangini Mishra …. Petitioner -versus- Ombudsman Officer, C/o Reserve Bank of India, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar and others … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Paikray, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. Mohanty, Counsel for O.P. No.2 & 3 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 22nd June, 2026 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Paikray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Mohanty learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and 3. 2. The Petitioner’s grievance is against the Bank Authorities that they are not releasing the claim amounts of the Petitioner kept in the fixed deposits by the deceased. Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 2 3. The Petitioner is the wife of deceased depositor namely Abhiram Dash, who died on 12th January, 2025 leaving behind Petitioner as the wife, three daughters and one son. Prior to his death the deceased had three fixed deposits, i.e. Fixed Deposit No. 300948208132 amounting Rs.13,75,703.31/-, Fixed Deposit No. 300948209665 amounting Rs.13,75,704.47/- and Fixed Deposit No. 300949976313 amounting Rs.9,04,905.84/-. After death of the deceased, present petitioner applied to the Bank for release of such amounts kept in those fixed deposits by settlement of the account. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, all the legal heirs of the deceased jointly executed three different claim forms in respect of those fixed deposits and three numbers of indemnity affidavit authorizing the settlement of the amount in favour of the Petitioner. But, the Bank Authorities vide letter dated 27th May 2025 (Annexure-4) insisted for submission of succession certificate or letter of administration. 5. Being aggrieved with said communication of the Bank, the Petitioner approached the RBI Ombudsman and the Ombudsman vide order dated 22nd October, 2025 under Annexure-6 rejected the prayer of Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 3 the Petitioner keeping in view the RBI guideline dated 26th September, 2025. 6. The Petitioner without challenging the order of the Ombudsman under Annexure-6 approached this Court in the present writ petition with a prayer to release such amount kept in the fixed deposits in her favour. 7. The RBI Guidelines dated 26th September, 2025 has been issued, inter alia, to facilitate expeditious settlement of claim by Bank upon death of a deceased customer and to minimize the hardship caused to the survivors, particularly in absence of any registered nomination. Clause- 10 of the RBI guidelines deals with simplified procedure for settlement of claims. For ready reference the same is reproduced below:- Keeping in view the imperative need to avoid inconvenience and undue hardship to the legal heir(s)/ claimant(s), a bank shall follow a simplified procedure for settlement of claims in respect of deposit accounts where the aggregate amount payable, including accrued interest, as on the date of the application is less than the threshold limit, provided (i) a deceased depositor(s) had not made any nomination or in case of a joint account, the account was without nominee/ survivorship clause, (ii) there is no Will left behind by the deceased depositor(s), (iii) there is no contesting claim, and Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 4 (iv) there is no order from a competent court in the knowledge of the bank, restraining the claimant(s) from receiving nor the bank from making the payment. (a) Claim amount up to the threshold limit The bank shall settle the claim up to the threshold limit based on (i) Claim form, as given in Annex I-B, duly filled in and signed by the claimant(s) other than those who have signed the letter of disclaimer/ no objection; (ii) Death certificate of the deceased depositor(s); (iii) Officially Valid Document of the claimant(s) towards verifying his/ her identity and address; (iv) Bond of indemnity, as given in Annex I-C, signed by the claimant(s); (v) Letter of disclaimer/ no objection, as given in Annex I-D. from non-claimant legal heir(s), if applicable; and (vi) Legal Heir Certificate issued by a competent authority; OR Declaration, as given in Annex I-E, regarding the legal heir(s) of the deceased depositor(s) by an independent person who is well known to the family of the deceased, is not a party to the claim and is acceptable to the bank. No bond of surety from a third-party shall be obtained in case of claims up to the threshold limit. (b) Claim amount above the threshold limit In cases where claim amount is above the threshold limit, the bank shall settle the claim based on Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 5 (i) Succession Certificate and documents mentioned at clauses 10(a)(i) to (iii) above; OR (ii) Legal Heir Certificate issued by a competent authority; or Affidavit, as given in Annex I-E sworn before a Notary Public/ Judge/ Judicial Magistrate regarding the legal heir(s) of the deceased depositor, by an independent person who is well known to the family of the deceased, is not a party to the claim and is acceptable to the bank. In such cases, the bank shall call for the documents at clauses 10(a)(i) to (v) above. The bank may also call for a bond of surety, as given in Annex IC, from third-party individuals (which may include non-claimant legal heir(s)) who are acceptable to the bank and good for the claim amount.” 8. The learned counsel for the Bank-Opposite Party files counter on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and 3 in Court, and the same is kept on record. 9. Being asked, Mr. S.S. Paikray, learned counsel for the Petitioner denies filing any reply or getting any instruction on the counter-affidavit, from the Petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that no such instructions or reply is required from the Petitioner on the counter filed by O.P. No.2 and 3. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, when threshold limit is less than 15 lakhs in respect of each fixed deposit individually, the insistence of Bank for production of letter of Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 6 administration or succession certificate for settlement of the claim amount is illegal and violative of the guidelines issued thereof. 11. As stated above, the total amount in respect of three fixed deposits required to be released in favour of the Petitioner is Rs.37,30,606.06/- as on 17th May, 2025 as per the computation of Bank. Thus, what is relevant to looked into is whether, the same is to be counted in total for the purpose of threshold amount or each fixed deposit has to be counted separately for said purpose as per the RBI Guidelines. It is defined in clause 7(h) that, the threshold limit means 5 lakh in case of a co- operative bank and 15 lakh in case of any other bank or such higher limit as may be fixed by the bank including a co-operative bank. 12. The contention of the Petitioner is mainly on the score that, when all the legal heirs of the deceased have agreed for disbursal of the amount in favour of the Petitioner, there would not be any difficulty on the part of Bank Authority to release the amount based on the affidavit and legal heir Certificate. The bank may also require an indemnity bond in this respect. 13. In Keshoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. Vrs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Calcutta : AIR 1966 SC 1370, Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 7 it has been held that since the amount cannot be termed as debt, there cannot be issuance of succession certificate in the provisions of Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act. The provisions as to grant of letters of administration, as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925 apply to all such Hindus died intestate. 14. Section 370 imposes certain restrictions on grant of succession certificate. 15. On the question of grant of succession certificate relating to release of the amount lying in a Bank, this Court in Jhunu Choudhury v. Zonal Manager, Bank of India and Others, WP(C) No.15491 of 2021, judgment dated 8th September, 2021, while dealing with the Model Operating Procedure issued in the year 2020, has observed that asking of the Bank for a succession certificate in such matters below the threshold limit is unreasonable and directed to release the amount on the basis of the affidavit and indemnity bond. 16. This above case, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is found to be a matter concerning service benefits paid in favour of the deceased in his bank account relating to pension where the prescribed threshold limit was forty lakhs and the claim amount was Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 8 admittedly below the same (which is specifically mentioned at paragraph 12 of said judgment). As such, the same is found quite distinguishable from the present facts of the case. 17. The RBI being the apex body in the Banking sector has issued the guideline dated 26th September, 2025 mentioning procedures for settlement of claims in two folds; one is below the threshold limit and other is above the threshold limit. The threshold amount in the present case is Rs.15 lakhs and the amount in deposit is more than the threshold amount. When, the MOP prescribes for certain procedures, the Opposite Party-Bank Authority is bound by such procedures. 18. Clause 10(b) speaks that, in cases, where claim amount is above the threshold limit, the Bank shall settle the claim based on the succession certificate and documents or the legal heir certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with affidavit and bond of surety from third party individual. This is a choice of the Bank as given and understood from the language of Clause 10 & 11, and the claimant cannot insist for the particular procedure in her choice. As reproduced above, the claim amount above the threshold limit has to be settled based on the issuance of succession certificate and such documents as per Clause 10(a)(i) to (iii). Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 9 19. So far the contention of the petitioner to treat claim amounts in each fixed deposit individually, it would fail consideration for the reason that the same are claimed jointly by the petitioner totalling a higher amount. It is not that the petitioner has applied separately in respect of each fixed deposit by submitting separate applications and separate documents and thus the segregation of total amount confining to the limit of each individual deposit is impermissible. When the MOP requires submission of the succession certificate for release of the amount in favour of an unregistered legal heir, it is understood that the same is in the interest of safety of the procedure relating to settlement of the account of a deceased depositor. There would not be any harm on the part of the petitioner to get the succession certificate from the competent court in terms of the provisions contained in the Indian Succession Act and the petitioner has not specifically pleaded the reasons why he will not be able to get the succession certificate, particularly when there are more than one legal heir of the deceased and the amount claimed for settlement is huge. The procedure prescribed in the MOP is not against the customer or the public policy but to safeguard the interest of legal representatives of the deceased depositor. Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 11:08:32 Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.36695 of 2025 p. 10 20. Apart from the above, there is a technical lacunae to entertain the writ petition due to absence of any challenge to the order of the Ombudsman. The petitioner did not chose to challenge the rejection order of the Ombudsman against him though has simply prayed for release of the amounts by settlement of the account without submission of succession certificate. 21. For the reasons stated above the writ petition is dismissed being found without merit. ( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda/P.A.