Nomination
Bharat Vakil
(Querist) 05 November 2017
This query is : Resolved
I was told by a friend that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Nominee shall inherit property over ridding a Wll. Is it true.? Can I have details of judgement please.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 05 November 2017
Ask your friend for the judgment if he told you this.
Supreme Court has highly experienced jurists will decide matter based on law of the land not on flimsy opinions.
Guest
(Expert) 05 November 2017
If your friend has told you about some judgment, he can also provide you a copy of the same.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 05 November 2017
Ask your friend to provide respective Judgment / reference case / ruling / citation if any.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 November 2017
Post the title, link to said judgment.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 November 2017
Nominee may not necessarily be legal heir that may have a right to inherit.
Valid WILL that is acted upon without any cloud on it is to prevail upon nomination, even if the nominee is also a legal heir.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 November 2017
IT=@PSD
ie. The poser,impostor at 3rd post below Mr. Vijay Raj Mahajan.....
IT's=@PSD' contibution in this thread is also NIL,ZERO.
IT=@PSD has posted just to add points that IT has been doing from Day1 from all of IT's multiple fake ID's..
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 November 2017
IT=@PSD has been posting about IT's=@PSD's ideoptahic hallucination on Nomination although the laws,precedence's have clearly laid clear directions,laws on Nomination.
IT=@PSD has NO literature on IT's hallucinations on Nomination.
It should take care of 'N' in A-Z ............
IT=@PSD will translate it to alph,be,pe,te...and IT's=@PSD's tribal Zuban...
Guest
(Expert) 05 November 2017
Four irrelevant and vague posts by Mr. Kumar Doab clearly demonstrating his profusely disturbed mind. To avoid any fatal effect of his disease, he must get himself cured on emergency basis by the most capable psychiatrist.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 06 November 2017
JIGYASU - Legal analyst,
Appreciate your last post which is full of legal knowledge, you claim that you have more legal knowledge than other experts.
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2017
@Mr. Rajendra K Goyal,
Fake experts making vague posts or misleading advice can never be the judge of my knowledge. You should have understood that I definitely have an upper edge than your knowledge, if I post my observation on any of your advice, which is now a scarce thing on your part, as you are just following only Mr. Kumar Doab.
I wonder, not caring of your own image, why as a qualified lawyer you feel pride in following a person who neither has any legal qualification, nor any knowledge.
Anyway, you can feel pleasure in being proud of your lot.
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2017
I disagree with the advice of Mr. Kumar Doab. Dates of nomination and the will can be the decisive criteria.
So, nomination for any asset, if made after the date of making a will, would definitely prevail over the will.
P. Venu 
(Expert) 06 November 2017
The recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar ruled that legal heirs and not the nominees will obtain the ownership rights of share certificates. The High Court has analysed provisions of nomination provided under various other statutes such as the Insurance Act, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, Banking Regulations Act, Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959, etc. The court observed that it is well settled that provision of nomination under these statutes are merely for the protection of the properties of the deceased pending the assertion and settlement of succession related issues by the heirs or successors of the deceased. Accordingly, an insurance company is well discharged of its payment obligation under the insurance policy, if payment is made to the nominee without conforming the ownership of the nominee over the policy. Similarly, the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act allows the Society to transfer the shares of the deceased member to nominee without conferring any ownership right over the nominee. Hence these provisions were made merely to give a valid discharge to the Insurance Company or the Cooperative Society to transfer the payment under the insurance policy or the membership rights in the Society to the nominee of the deceased policyholder or flat owner, as the case may be, without vesting the ownership rights in such policy of society. The Honourable Court observed that nomination provision under the Companies Act 1956, viz. Section 109B are not materially different from the nomination provision provided in the above referred statues and does not serve any different purpose. The nominee does not get absolute title to the property, which is the subject matter of the nomination. The reason is by its very nature,when a shareholder or a deposit holder or an insurance policy holder or a member of a Co-operative Society makes a nomination during his lifetime, he does not transfer his interest in favour of the nominee. It is always held that the nomination does not override the law in relation to testamentary or intestate succession. The provisions regarding nomination are made with a view to ensure that the estate or the rights of the deceased are protected till the legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps. The object of the provisions of the Companies Act is not to create a third mode of succession. The object of the Section 109A is to ensure that the deceased shareholder is represented by someone, as the value of the shares is subject to market forces.
http://www.indialaw.in/blog/blog/commercialcorporate/nomination-vs-succession/
