|Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
So you are writing all these based on this article.
Mr:Dhingra ,that article was based Indrani Wahi Case. Please refer My Previous Post.
Please read the judgment. Not article. This article is misleading you.
I will write to him.
I had copy of that judgment in my file. If you want i will send you. In my previous post , i have quoted this case also. You can refer my previous post.
What is the Issue? Whether the rights of nominee prevail over those of successor?
From the judgment
"The Cooperative Society has no option whatsoever, except to transfer the membership in the name of the nominee, in consonance with Sections 79 and 80 of the 1983 Act (read with Rules 127 and 128 of the 1987 Rules). That, would have no relevance to the issue of title between the inheritors or successors to the property of the deceased. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, we therefore hereby direct 'the Cooperative Society' to transfer the share or interest of the society in favour of the appellant - Indrani Wahi. It shall however, be open to the other members of the family (presently only the son of Biswa Ranjan Sengupta - Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta; we are informed that his mother - Parul Sengupta has died), to pursue his case of succession or inheritance, if he is so advised, in consonance with law."
Go through the judgmentJust Go through the judgment
The court pointed out that the requirement for transfer of shares in favor of the nominee, is stipulated only for societies registered under the West Bengal act and at no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of nominee will prevail over that of the successor.
IN this case apex court had observed that it would be open for other members of the family of the deceased to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. Therefore those who are claiming their rights under inheritance will be entitled to claim the title to the shares in the society on the basis of inheritance
Please refer precedents of the supreme court and various high courts relating to this issue. In case of shares held in a company, shares held in a co operative society, investment made in financial instruments such as employee provident fund etc and the right of nominee with respects to various accounts held with banks. you can observe that in all these cases the provisions relating to nominations have been consistently interpreted as only giving a temporary controlling right to the nominees
Please read the judgment. Not article
@Mr. Krishna Advocate,
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.
Before writing anything, I may like to request you to recheck and reply the following questions:
(1) Who was the nominee as per the Co-op Society record, whether Indrani Wahi or Parul Sengupta, the widow of the deceased?
(2) Who was the appellant in the case, "Indrani Wahi Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors." whether Indrtani Wahi or Parul Sengupta?
(3) When, as per para 21, the Supreme Court judgment says, "appeal stands allowed in the above terms," in whose favour the judgment goes, the appellant "Indrani Wahi" the appellant, OR "Mrs. Parul Sengupta" the widow of the deceased?
(4) When, as per second part of Para 20, the Supreme Court judgment says, "WE therefore HEREBY DIRECT 'the Cooperative Society' to TRANSFER the share or interest of the society IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT - INDRANI WAHI." in whose favour the judgment goes, the appellant "Indrani Wahi" the appellant OR "Mrs. Parul Sengupta" the widow of the deceased?
If the judgment allowed the respondent to pursue her claim through separate case, that does not mean that the judgment goes in favour of the widow of the deceased. The case was still to be filed for pursuit and distinct judgment, which is yet uncertain.
As regards your persistence, "at no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of nominee will prevail over that of the successor," (1) can you point out if the Supreme Court in that judgment has anywhere stated that the nominee is merely a trustee. (2) Further, any such of your own assumption cannot be treated as the judgment of the supreme court on the issue of transfer of property in the name of the widow of the deceased. (3) Still further to that, you have not so far been able to quote any statutory provision, which can establish your assumption that a nominee is merely a trustee.
For your information, if I have quoted an article as a supplement to my own independent views, with specific reference to the quoted cases, that does not mean that my views were based merely on the newspaper story. I quoted the reference of the story only when you tried to repeat the "Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi" case in spite of my earlier stand on the issue, which you conveniently tried to ignore, just to falsely insist on your own assumptions..
However, if you still want to live with your assumptions and presumptions by misinterpreting even the existing judgment, nobody can desist you from doing so. But the facts cannot be changed that there is no such section of any law that declares the nominee as a trustee and bound to transfer the assets after claiming from the society.
Just think over the issue, if a nominee does not put any claim purposely, but merely contests the issue of succession certificate and wins with particular reference to the property of nomination, would the society be able to transfer the flat in the name of anyone else? if yes, under which section of the Cooperative Act or Rules?