Skip to main content

A nominee is only a Trustee holding the amount on behalf of the actual beneficiaries and does not have any vested right or interest in the same

In R.Saranya vs. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, during the life time of the deceased Ramakrishnan, he had taken two insurance policies with the first Respondent. He had been paying the premium till his death. As the first Petitioner is inexperienced and was not well-educated, her husband had appointed the second Respondent, who is his paternal uncle's son, as nominee in the said policies. However, after the death of the first Petitioner's husband, the second Respondent is trying to appropriate the entire insurance amount taking advantage of the nomination made in his favour. Though a legal notice was issued to the first Respondent, the first respondent has not yet settled the amount in favour of the Petitioners. Petitioner has sought this writ of mandamus before the Madras High Court, to direct the first Respondent to release the insured amount under two Policy proportionately in favour of the Petitioners. 

The prayer of the Petitioners was resisted by the first Respondent by filing a counter affidavit contending that, they have not acted anything detrimental to the interest of the beneficiaries and has not shown any undue haste in releasing the amounts under the policies. 

It is a well settled principle that, a nominee is only a Trustee holding the amount on behalf of the actual beneficiaries and does not have any vested right or interest in the same. 

As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and another vs. Smt.Usha Devi, when the nominee is only an authorised person to receive the amount and distribute in accordance with the law of succession, the second respondent, who is a nominee, cannot have any right over the said amount. 

It is also not in dispute that the Petitioners, under the law of succession, which governs them, are entitled to an equal share in the estate of the deceased. The Policy amount receivable is a part of the estate of the deceased and the Petitioners are entitled to equal share. 

The High Court therefore allowed the writ petition directing the first Respondent to release the insurance amount payable under the Policy taken in the name of the deceased, directly to the Petitioners

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more