Mr: Dhingara

Please read this from judgment

"In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question."

"Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."

 We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act.

We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

Mr: Dhingara

Please read this from judgment

"In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question."

"Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."

 We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act.

We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

Mr: Dhingara

Please read this from judgment

"In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question."

"Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."

 We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act.

We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
	You wrote” “ON THE WHOLE NO PROVISION OF ANY STATUTE HAS BEEN QUOTED SO FAR BY ANY OF THE EXPERTS, ACCODING TO WHICH A NOMINEE IS TREATED AS A TRUSTEE. Quoting of cases under different laws on different aspects cannot become a law of the land. “ Mr: Dhingra  There is no general law on Nomination.The right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of Nomination. There are various Acts, namely Companies Act, The Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, Banking Regulation Act,  Provident Funds Act,Insurance Act, Government Saving Banks Act,  Depositories Act, Mutual Funds Regulations, etc., that have provisions pertaining to nomination. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High courts s are of the view that the above Acts cannot override the succession law and succession can be governed only by Succession Law i.e. Testamentary or Intestate as the case may be and not by any other Act.

@Mr. Mrishna Advocate,

I have already expressed my views on your observation. So, there was no rationale in repeating the same. Moreover, when you admit that "There are various Acts, namely Companies Act, The Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, Banking Regulation Act,  Provident Funds Act,Insurance Act, Government Saving Banks Act,  Depositories Act, Mutual Funds Regulations, etc., that have provisions pertaining to nomination, the cases of nomination have to be dealt with according to the relevant law, not the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property.

So far as the judgments are concerned there are various conflicting judgments of the High Courts and Supreme Courts, which should be taken as the law of the land has not yet been decided by any Court of Law or the Government of India.

So, quotations of conflicting jugments over different issues do not have any relevance.

Mr: Dhinkara What is is the issue? If your issue is a provision

PROVISION OF ANY STATUTE HAS BEEN QUOTED SO FAR BY ANY OF THE EXPERTS, ACCODING TO WHICH A NOMINEE IS TREATED AS A TRUSTEE.

I already told you that There is no general law on Nomination

Next

"Really a funny analysis on your part, which reveals that even the facts of the judgment being in your custody, you still insist wanted to stress on your own baseless assumptions that was not at all besed on any statute of the land."

================

A division bench of the Bombay High Court analyses on  the said judgment 

Read This

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Co-op
Societies and Others the bench observed that “The conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was that a Cooperative Society is bound by the nomination made by the member. In case of such nomination, the Society has no option except to transfer the shares in the name of the nominee after the death of the member. However, those who are claiming inheritance will be entitled to pursue their remedies and claim title in the shares on the basis of inheritance.Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was not that the nomination binds the legal representatives of the deceased shareholder or a member of the Society or that it overrides the law of succession.”

===========================
Thats all.

Advocate Krishna 

Mr:Dhinkara

I understand you. I know there is no merit in your arguments. But i will convince you.

You wrote

"that have provisions pertaining to nomination, the cases of nomination have to be dealt with according to the relevant law, not the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property."

Who said cases of nomination (in case of property) is  dealt with the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property.?

Your are totally confused or your are not understanding the facts and judgments. How can we decide the issues on property with the company law or insurance law? Even in case of nomination. Interpretation of nomination will vary according to the subject matter.

Please read carefully and then understand facts and the judgment. What supreme court and various high courts said in this issue.

Can you send me one judgment that says nominee is the absolute owner of the property after death of nominator?

Eeven if the Property is transfered to Nominee , he is not having title to property. The legal Heirs are the absolute owner of the property. If you reply to this post ,  reply with  any Judgment . Not your findings.

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
	Mr: Dhingara Please read this from judgment "In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question." "Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."  We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

Mr. Krishna, Advocate,

Insistence on your vague assumptions by writing BIG letter may not prove you right. You may live with your own assumptions, presumptions and irrelevant case laws. Not only about one relevant case law, but also on all the aspects of your vague assumptions, I have already proved that you wrong.

But, one thing has become quite certain about you that you base your clients' cases merely on your assumptions and presumptions or irrelevant case laws, but not on the provisions of law.

Anyway, best of luck!

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
	Mr: Dhingara Please read this from judgment "In our view, Mr. Amal Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has rightly contended that within the limited scope of Section 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973, the Cooperative Tribunal was not required to determine the disputed question of title between the parties in dispute and the High Court had also gone wrong in holding that when a valid nomination is made, the nominee acquires title to the property in question." "Dr. Shanker Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is a complete code by itself and since the said Act is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, if a rival claim of title to the property is raised, the Cooperative Tribunal is not incompetent to decide such title."  We are, however, not inclined to accept such contention of Dr. Ghosh. In our view, within the limited scope of inquiry to be made for determining the question of valid nomination under Section 69, title to the property cannot be determined. In terms of determination of valid nomination the consequential direction for delivery of possession can be given in favour of the person having valid nomination under the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The dispute as to the question of title is not to be decided within the limited scope and ambit of Sections 69 and 70 of the cooperative Societies Act. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the respondent had obtained a valid nomination from the deceased Ranendra Kumar Acharya, the respondent is entitled to get the possession of the said flat in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. But the dispute as to the title of the said flat should not be held to have been decided either by the Cooperative Tribunal or by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Such question is kept open to be decided by an appropriate forum if such challenge is made before the appropriate forum. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs."

Mr. Krishna, Advocate,

Insistence on your vague assumptions by writing BIG letter may not prove you right. You may live with your own assumptions, presumptions and irrelevant case laws. Not only about one relevant case law, but also on all the aspects of your vague assumptions, I have already proved that you wrong.

But, one thing has become quite certain about you that you base your clients' cases merely on your assumptions and presumptions or irrelevant case laws, but not on the provisions of law.

Anyway, best of luck!

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
	Mr: Dhinkara What is is the issue? If your issue is a provision PROVISION OF ANY STATUTE HAS BEEN QUOTED SO FAR BY ANY OF THE EXPERTS, ACCODING TO WHICH A NOMINEE IS TREATED AS A TRUSTEE. I already told you that There is no general law on Nomination Next "Really a funny analysis on your part, which reveals that even the facts of the judgment being in your custody, you still insist wanted to stress on your own baseless assumptions that was not at all besed on any statute of the land." ================ A division bench of the Bombay High Court analyses on  the said judgment  Read This Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Co-op Societies and Others the bench observed that “The conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was that a Cooperative Society is bound by the nomination made by the member. In case of such nomination, the Society has no option except to transfer the shares in the name of the nominee after the death of the member. However, those who are claiming inheritance will be entitled to pursue their remedies and claim title in the shares on the basis of inheritance.Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was not that the nomination binds the legal representatives of the deceased shareholder or a member of the Society or that it overrides the law of succession.” =========================== Thats all. Advocate Krishna

Mr. Krishna, Advocate,

Insistence on your vague assumptions by writing BIG letter may not prove you right. You may live with your own assumptions, presumptions and irrelevant case laws. Not only about one relevant case law, but also on all the aspects of your vague assumptions, I have already proved that you wrong.

But, one thing has become quite certain about you that you base your clients' cases merely on your assumptions and presumptions or irrelevant case laws, but not on the provisions of law.

Anyway, best of luck!

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
	Mr:Dhinkara I understand you. I know there is no merit in your arguments. But i will convince you. You wrote "that have provisions pertaining to nomination, the cases of nomination have to be dealt with according to the relevant law, not the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property." Who said cases of nomination (in case of property) is  dealt with the Company Law or Insurance Law for the issues on property.? Your are totally confused or your are not understanding the facts and judgments. How can we decide the issues on property with the company law or insurance law? Even in case of nomination. Interpretation of nomination will vary according to the subject matter. Please read carefully and then understand facts and the judgment. What supreme court and various high courts said in this issue. Can you send me one judgment that says nominee is the absolute owner of the property after death of nominator? Eeven if the Property is transfered to Nominee , he is not having title to property. The legal Heirs are the absolute owner of the property. If you reply to this post ,  reply with  any Judgment . Not your findings.

Mr. Krishna, Advocate,

Insistence on your vague assumptions by writing BIG letter may not prove you right.

I am not confused, but you seem to be confused and have forgottent that your own quoted Sarbati Devi case was related to Insurance claim and that pertaining to Felix vs Jemi, Gnana Selvi Gawsiga case to terminal benefits of the deceased, not property of cooperative society.

So, you may better live with your own assumptions, presumptions and irrelevant case laws. Not only about one relevant case law, but also on all the aspects of your vague assumptions, I have already proved that you wrong.

But, one thing has become quite certain about you that you base your clients' cases merely on your assumptions and presumptions or irrelevant case laws, but not on the provisions of law.

Anyway, best of luck!

Hello

Mr. Krishna and Mr. Dhingra, thanks for your suggestions.

Thanks Everyone

Few things i would i like  you  all to know:

> Nominee is not aware that his name is/was mentioned as a nominee in the register(that time, which is held with the Coop housing). And till now he doesnt know about this.

> Husband's PPF, Bank A/c, insurance policy, share etc all have already been transfered to her wife.

> We discussed the matter with secretary of the society and asked if the Succession Certificate is enough to transfer the property to his wife's name. To which he said yes you can get that and then we can proceed.

> Later we discussed the issue with 2 lawyers in person: One of them suggested us to go for Surviving Member Certificate as it does the same purpose and can be made in less time while another suggested us to get a Succession Certificate and then get the flat transfered to wifes name.

> Owner(Husband) became the member of the society in 1980, 5years later he got married and in 1990 possession and allotment letter of the house was given. Unfortunately he forgot to change the nominee. When he became the member of the society the only living member of his was his brother. 

Last point may be irrelevant and i would delete it later, if its of no use.

Originally posted by : Nura Nais AS
	Hello Mr. Krishna and Mr. Dhingra, thanks for your suggestions. Thanks Everyone Few things i would i like  you  all to know: > Nominee is not aware that his name is/was mentioned as a nominee in the register(that time, which is held with the Coop housing). And till now he doesnt know about this. > Husband's PPF, Bank A/c, insurance policy, share etc all have already been transfered to her wife. > We discussed the matter with secretary of the society and asked if the Succession Certificate is enough to transfer the property to his wife's name. To which he said yes you can get that and then we can proceed. > Later we discussed the issue with 2 lawyers in person: One of them suggested us to go for Surviving Member Certificate as it does the same purpose and can be made in less time while another suggested us to get a Succession Certificate and then get the flat transfered to wifes name. > Owner(Husband) became the member of the society in 1980, 5years later he got married and in 1990 possession and allotment letter of the house was given. Unfortunately he forgot to change the nominee. When he became the member of the society the only living member of his was his brother.  Last point may be irrelevant and i would delete it later, if its of no use.

Ms. Nura Nais,

I think, I have expressed my opinion very elaborately in detail. You could have picked up the idea about course of action to be adopted. Since the nominee is unaware about his nomination, finally, I can only say that before any action on your part can prove to be a fraud on the part of both of you and the secretary, if the incidence of nomination comes to notice later to the nominee, you may better be fully cautious in claiming the property. For right course of action, any shortcut of casual advice may not work. Plan carefully (not manipulate) to get the property transferred legally in the name of wife of the deceased..