This is like the story of one listening to the story of Ramayanam all night. All my efforts have gone to waste.  My Dear Legal Analyst why read only the last two lines of the judgment. Read the Judgment from top to bottom. Do not expect me to give you tutorial. The judgment not only lists the various acts. It has reproduced the section on nomination in each Act and given the judgment on each of them. If you are still not able to surmise the legal meaning of nomination under the acts you are no Legal Analyst, which, in any way, you are not. 

My dear Dr. MPS Ramani,

The quality of your doctorate qualifiction has been made clearly known by yourself only. It seems you do not understand the difference between the specific "SECTION" of some specific act and a "LIST of Acts," and also "TRUSTEE" and "NOMINEE".

I wanted to hear your so called "Ramayana" from you, but you are trying to narrate Mahabharat in the name of Ramayana and still stressing that the same was Ramayana only

When I have disputed the version of judgment as against the provisions of law, why you are harping on the same tune of judgment time and again? Why don't you admit that you don't know any such section, which clearly specifies the meaning of nomination, as merely a trustee. 

BETTER LEARN FIRST AND THEN TRY TO MAKE OTHERS LEARN. DON'T TRY TO PROVE YOURSELF AS A CHARLATAN. Be a real doctorate scholar, if you really have a Degree of PhD.

ज्ञानलवदुर्विदग्दम  ब्रह्माभी नरम न रञ्जयति    

Even Brahma cannot make a pretender to understand.

Abusing and calling names are his weapons.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	ज्ञानलवदुर्विदग्दम  ब्रह्माभी नरम न रञ्जयति     Even Brahma cannot make a pretender to understand. Abusing and calling names are his weapons.

@Dr. MPS Ramani,

I also hold the same views about you.

Yes, the Judgment relied on by Learned Friend Dr. MPS Ramani provides succinct account of the prevaling law as well the legal proposition involved. Though Dr.Ramani had attached only a gist of the Judgment, the same could be accessed at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90095408/.

And if read as a whole, the legal position is unequivocal. This position is based on the legal provisions of the various laws as prevailing today.

The Judgment examines the import of the provisions as to nomination in the Banking Regulation Act vis-a-vis succession, testamentary or intestate, as provided in the Law or the Custom of the Country. In this context, the following paras repay study:

"25. Now we come to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander Talwar and Others v. Devender Kumar Talwar and 11 2010(3) All MR 599 sng 38 appeal-313n311.15 Others12. The issue before the Apex Court was whether a nominee in the bank account held by the deceased can claim full rights over the money lying in the account to the exclusion of the legal heirs.

Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the said decision read thus:

"4. Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA, 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."

(emphasis added)

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 12 (2010)10 SCC 671  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."

(emphasis added)

26. Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 starts with a non-obstante clause which seeks to override any other law for the time being in force or any disposition whether testamentary or otherwise in respect of such deposit, where a nomination has been made in the prescribed manner. Though the word "vest" is not used in Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA, it provides that a nominee on the death of the sole depositor or as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors becomes entitled to all rights as the sole depositor in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons. The Apex Court held that the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is no way concerned with the question of succession and, therefore, all the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA would form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and would be governed by the law of succession by which the depositor  was governed. Though Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA seeks to override any other law for the time being in force or any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, the Apex Court held that the nominee does not become the owner of the money lying in the account."

The Court has summarised the legal position in the following words:

"35. Considering the consistent view taken by the Apex Court while interpreting the provisions relating to nominations under various Statutes (including the view in the recent decision in the case of Indrani Wahi), there is no reason to make a departure from the consistent view. The provisions of the Companies Act including Sections 109A and 109B, in the light of the object of the said Enactment, do not warrant any such departure. The so called vesting under Section 109A does not create a third mode of succession. It is not intended to create a third mode of succession. The Companies Act has nothing to do with the law of succession. We have gone through every decision and material relied upon by the Appellants to which we have not made a specific reference in this Judgment. We hold that there was no reason to take a view which is contrary to the view taken in the long line of the decisions of the Apex Court on interpretation of provisions regarding nominations ................."

It makes no dfifference that the Case involved, viz. Appeal No.313 of dismissed. The decision appealed against had held that Nomination does not overide the  provisions of law as to testamentary or intestate succession.

Last, but not least, Dr.Ramani has been making valuable contribution to LCI and all the well wishers of LCI would cetainly be grateful and looks forward to enlightened suggestions from him in the days. 

I also apologise, on behalf of all benign and well meaning contributors of LCI for all the discomforts he has been subjected to because of some overreaching individuals.

STRANGE INTERPRETAION of law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by : P. Venu
	Yes, the Judgment relied on by Learned Friend Dr. MPS Ramani provides succinct account of the prevaling law as well the legal proposition involved. Though Dr.Ramani had attached only a gist of the Judgment, the same could be accessed at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90095408/. And if read as a whole, the legal position is unequivocal. This position is based on the legal provisions of the various laws as prevailing today. The Judgment examines the import of the provisions as to nomination in the Banking Regulation Act vis-a-vis succession, testamentary or intestate, as provided in the Law or the Custom of the Country. In this context, the following paras repay study: "25. Now we come to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander Talwar and Others v. Devender Kumar Talwar and 11 2010(3) All MR 599 sng 38 appeal-313n311.15 Others12. The issue before the Apex Court was whether a nominee in the bank account held by the deceased can claim full rights over the money lying in the account to the exclusion of the legal heirs. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the said decision read thus: "4. Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA, 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." (emphasis added) 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 12 (2010)10 SCC 671  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." (emphasis added) 26. Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 starts with a non-obstante clause which seeks to override any other law for the time being in force or any disposition whether testamentary or otherwise in respect of such deposit, where a nomination has been made in the prescribed manner. Though the word "vest" is not used in Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA, it provides that a nominee on the death of the sole depositor or as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors becomes entitled to all rights as the sole depositor in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons. The Apex Court held that the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is no way concerned with the question of succession and, therefore, all the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA would form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and would be governed by the law of succession by which the depositor  was governed. Though Sub-section (2) of Section 45-ZA seeks to override any other law for the time being in force or any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, the Apex Court held that the nominee does not become the owner of the money lying in the account." The Court has summarised the legal position in the following words: "35. Considering the consistent view taken by the Apex Court while interpreting the provisions relating to nominations under various Statutes (including the view in the recent decision in the case of Indrani Wahi), there is no reason to make a departure from the consistent view. The provisions of the Companies Act including Sections 109A and 109B, in the light of the object of the said Enactment, do not warrant any such departure. The so called vesting under Section 109A does not create a third mode of succession. It is not intended to create a third mode of succession. The Companies Act has nothing to do with the law of succession. We have gone through every decision and material relied upon by the Appellants to which we have not made a specific reference in this Judgment. We hold that there was no reason to take a view which is contrary to the view taken in the long line of the decisions of the Apex Court on interpretation of provisions regarding nominations ................." It makes no dfifference that the Case involved, viz. Appeal No.313 of dismissed. The decision appealed against had held that Nomination does not overide the  provisions of law as to testamentary or intestate succession. Last, but not least, Dr.Ramani has been making valuable contribution to LCI and all the well wishers of LCI would cetainly be grateful and looks forward to enlightened suggestions from him in the days.  I also apologise, on behalf of all benign and well meaning contributors of LCI for all the discomforts he has been subjected to because of some overreaching individuals.

@ P. Venu,

Great invention! A very long explanation for jsut a very small term, "NOMINEE", AS A "TRUSTEE", but still preferred to get conveniently distracted!

An instance of good English, but bad interpretation of law! 

Do you believe that the judgments can never be wrong?

I could understand about Dr. MPS Ramani to be a layman, as not qualified in law, but could not expect a qualified lawyer to act like a layman. Although reproduced the whole of the section 45ZA, but could not interpret that section appropriately. Now I can very well understand, why even the most justified clients lose their cases, when their lawyers cannot take a right stand before the judges, in spite of the existence of the provisions in law. Mr. P. Venu should better re-read section 45ZA several times and find, if anywhere that section describes a nominee as merely a trustee.

I believe, even as a layman, if Dr. MPS Ramani reads the section very carefull, he can interpret the section appropriately, which Mr. P. Venu could not.

Of course, I will be justified to express pity on such state of expertise on the part of so called experts.

I don't understand, why even the qualified and experienced lawyers don't have the courage to declare assumptions of judges as wrong and misleading in view of the clear provision in the main law about the issue of nomination. If they can't stand against any wrong interpretation of law, how they can be able to get justice for their client, who pay then in good faith?

Is there no expert, who can interpret the provision of the section 45ZA appropriately?.

JIGYASU : YOU hallucinatingly claim yourself as a "Legal Analyst" alias "Legal Consultants". IF YOU ARE REALLY CAPABLE, THEN WHY do you not "interpret yourself the provision of the section 45ZA appropriately" INSTEAD of twisting your perverted words and Criticising & Ridiculing other expert participants.

WHY DONT YOU STOP YOUR CHRONIC PERVERTNESS ????

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

Originally posted by : Hemant Agarwal
	JIGYASU : YOU hallucinatingly claim yourself as a "Legal Analyst" alias "Legal Consultants". IF YOU ARE REALLY CAPABLE, THEN WHY do you not "interpret yourself the provision of the section 45ZA appropriately" INSTEAD of twisting your perverted words and Criticising & Ridiculing other expert participants. WHY DONT YOU STOP YOUR CHRONIC PERVERTNESS ???? Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

@ Mr. Hemant Agarwal,

As I have already interpreted appropriately right from the beginning of the thread, only then I have thrown challenge to the fake experts like you, which you call hallucination, while you like fake experts have amply proved that you can depend merely on reading between the lines of various judgments, rather than relying on the main laws. It is not my chronic pervertness, rather you have proved that to what extent you like fake experts try to pervert even the provisions of real law of the land that tends to impose injustice to the people really suffering from the hands of law implementing machinery.

As regards your slogan, "keep smiling" which you are habitual to repeat on every post, of course, I am smiling on your senseless post. Rest assured, I am not in favour of providing you tutorials, if even qualified professionals don't like to use their own talent. You don't deserve any such help from me.

YOU MAY BETTER READ THE SECTION TEN TIMES YOURSELF, if you have any capability and really want to interpret the provisions of that section, you will understand, what the section conveys in reality. That is sure to remove your own hallucination. Otherwise, if you can't use your own brain, like the Godess of justice, you may also start wearing black cloth on your eyes. That way, you will not have the need to see whether there exists any justice or injustice.

IN FACT, PEOPLE GET INJUSTICE ONLY IF THEY HAPPEN TO HIRE SERVICES OF YOUR LIKE-MINDED LAWYERS.

Even your own brethren advocate has condemned the Indian system of law through his query read as, "Indian laws are the dirtiest law in all countries" Although he is also of your Agarwal community, but seems to know how proper usage of his brain. The other advocates have also contributed their views in the similar fashion in that thread. Even one of the lawyer has very openly stated, "Every advocate is incompetent to comment on judiciary," when revealing that slavery system is still prevalent in the Indian advocates. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO WITH HIM?

ALSO, ARE ALL OF THEM ALSO HALLICINATED OR HAVE CHRONIC PERVERTNESS?

You and other like minded advocates, the so called experts, may like to read at the following thread for brightening your mind:

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Indian-laws-are-the-dirtiest-law-in-all-countries-153207.asp 

Sorry to intervene, as I find that quite a minor issue gets a lot of controversy. Mr. Jigyasu simply wanted to know which section of which law declares a nominee as a trustee. In fact none of the experts have come straight to the real issue, rather had been giving stress merely on a judgment without touching the real term, i.e., "nominee" as a "TRUSTEE".

Although Mr. Jigyasu seemed to have put the experts at the testing position, but still as learned professionals, they were required to give proper thought over what exactly Mr. Jigyasu wanted to pin point. Had they given proper thought over the issue, it was a matter to improve or enhance their own knowledge and professional skill. Rather, instead of taking the issue in its right perspective, the experts tried to ridicule him as if an idiot. So, a so callsed LEARNER, Mr. Jigyasu, seemed to have jeaopardised the position of the experts to a great extent.

The experts repeatedly referred Section 45ZA, but never tried to interpret that section, where the section very clearly provides about the status of the nominee, except a will. The section provides for CONFERMENT OF "RIGHT" on the nominee and be treated as the same RIGHT of the depositor, himself, as if not died. Just think, had the deceased not died, would he act like a trustee for his legal heirs and could be legally made liable to distribute all the proceeds of his earnings in the shape of savings/deposits he would have withdrawn for his own use?

For the purpose of ease of interpretation, I would like to place the relevant part of the Section 45ZA, which clearly states as follows:

@ Mr. Jigyasu,

Don't get disheartened with such bitter criticism of yours. Not being innovative, most of the people, instead of making retrospection of their own knowledge by verifying the correctness of their thought perceptions, learn at much later stage due to their own blunders, when they commit. Free knowldge is normally not honoured or digested by some people. Of course, your manner of getting some experts realize was somewhat typically unpredictable by one and all, but was admirable and justified to make the experts realize, if they could as to where they would have the need to reconcile. But for for the purpose of laymen that method was quite difficult to understand.

However, I appreciate your spirit to make one and learn, what they ought to. If you feel to be not getting benefited by virtue of the knowledge & experience of experts, you may amply be learning with your own interaction, may be with such type of bitter experience that you could gain from this thread.

@ Mr. Dhingra,

Thanks for your understanding and appreciation. Actually, I wanted to confirm, whether my interpretation is correct or not. Now with your illustration that is confirmed beyond any doubt.

But, I feel great pity on the knowledge of the so called experts, like Mr. P. Venu and Hemant Agarwal, who merely prefer to follow judgments - wrong or right, instead of looking in to the provisions of the relevant law.

Dear Mr. Jigyasu,

So far as the experts are concerned, I vehemently differ with your opinion. No person can claim to be expert in all the streams of law. If not perfect in some law, they may be perfect in several other laws.

So, you should have avoided to express any such opinion about them merely on the basis of a single instance.

Dear Mr. Dhingra:

Nothing justifies abusing other members of this Forum and calling them names.   He calls names the two advocates. He cannot make any statement on me because I do not claim any special knowledge of law. So he wants to abuse me on my Ph.D. What knowledge has he on the subject of my Ph.D.?  He is less than a pigmy on the subject of my Ph.D. Mr. Dhingra you answer me straight. What do you think of that person ridiculing my Ph. D.?  I am waiting for your straight reply.

The December 2016 judgment  was on two appeals by two nominees. There is reference in that to what is known as the Kokade case. In that case before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, the case was decided in favour of a nominee.  The cases under appeal went before another single judge of the same high court. When a case goes before a court, if there was already a decision  in a similar case by a higher court, the lower court will not go against the decision  Here it was one single judge not agreeing with another single judge judgment. In courts judges and lawyers do not call names or ridicule each other.  The second single judge held the judgment in Kokade case per incuriam.  As it became a case of one single judge against other single judge, it was referred to the Chief Justice. His Lordship assigned the case to Division Bench of two judges. That is how courts resolve ties. That may not be perfect. But calling each other names and ridiculing respected lawyers  is not perfect either.

In appeal No.311 of 2015 Nanak S. Ghatalia was the appellant. He argues the case of a nominee. His argues himself without appointing a lawyer. His arguments are just brilliant. Notwithstanding his brilliant arguments, the Division bench decides otherwise. You go through the arguments of the Division Bench and if you feel that they have gone wrong, pont out where they have gone wrong. Generate a healthy debate and raise the status of LCI. Do you agree with me Mr. Dhingra? Instead of that why go low ridiculing lawyers who practice their profession? As a scientist the people with whom I cross swords are brilliant scientists from the Western World and not Jigyasu. My research papers get published in reputed international journals only after they are approved by at least two anonymous referees.

Both Jigyasu and Dhingra ask which law says nominees are only trustees etc. etc.  As far as I know no law says so. In law everything need not be expressed. Things can be implied too. If everything was to be expressed and nothing should be left to be implied, we would not need lawyers and judges. You just feed things into a computer and get results.

Nomination laws deal with what is to be done with the estate of a person in the event of his death. But succession laws also deal with the same subject. In case of a conflict between the two the question will arise as to which one would prevail. Remember you cannot leave the question unanswered. If you answer that the succession laws shall prevail, the next question would be, what for is there a nominee? Those who say that succession laws prevail, answer that the nominee is a trustee. He is called a trustee because it is presumed that he had the trust of the deceased, a trustee who selflessly does the right thing. A nominee is appointed by the deceased. A successor is not appointed. Either he is claimant to an intestate property or the property is bequeathed to him by a Will. An executor would be appointed by a Will.

Most probably the entire legal community in India holds the view that the rights of a successor under the succession act prevails over that of a nominee. If you feel that it should change start a healthy debate with respect for your opponent and without calling names. If you so wish, you can write an article on the subject in LCI.

A person proposes an insurance policy for the benefit of the nominee. Insurance policy is not accumulation of wealth to be passed on to the next generation. A breadwinner may want to provide for his wife and children in the event of his untimely death. it will be traversity of justice if the policy amount goes to his mother who is being looked after well by his well-to-do brother. Writing a will,  will not be in the mind of a person while taking out a policy.

Dear Dinghra and Jigyasu read the justifications given by the judges in support of their judgments and comment on them and not snipe at respectable people here.