MAHALAKSHMI PAVANI vs UCO BANK & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 17 November 2023
Judgment pronounced on : 07 December 2023
+ CONT.CAS(C) 186/2020
MAHALAKSHMI PAVANI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv.
versus
UCO BANK & ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan & Mr. Mirza
Amir Baig, for R-1/UCO Bank.
Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSPC with Mr. Gokul
Sharma, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Shivam Dubey &
Mr. Suresh Garg, Advs. for Noticee
Mr. Praveen Pavani.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T

1. The present contempt petition is filed by the petitioner under
section 2(b), 11 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 against respondent No.1/ UCO Bank for the deliberate violation
and non-compliance of the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 11552 of 2019.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The Petitioner herein is the ex-daughter-in-law of Late Sh.
Pavani Parameshwara Rao, who was a Senior Advocate practicing in
the Supreme Court of India. She filed a writ petition claiming that her
father-in-law/testator had executed a registered will on 29.06.2017
before his death and he passed away on 13.09.2017. Evidently, the
Will of the deceased as expressed by him was his last & final Will,
had nominated the Petitioner as the „Executor” of his Will.

3. The details of the moveable and immoveable properties of the
deceased have been clearly delineated in the Will as also its
apportionment amongst the Legal Heirs of the deceased. However, the
present contempt petition encapsulates the issue regarding the three
bank accounts of the deceased in UCO Bank, Supreme Court Branch,
Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi viz., Savings, Current and
Assistants” Current Bank Account. The claim that has to be released
by the Respondent No.1/Bank is to the tune of Rs.4,96,07,344.81/-.
4. It was the case of the Petitioner in the writ that she approached
respondent No.1/ Bank to release the impugned sum of money for the
distribution of the same to the Legal Heirs of the deceased according
to the Will. However, the Bank vide letter dated 20.10.2018 requested
the Executor of the Will to submit certain documents viz., (i) fresh
indemnity bond, (ii) fresh affidavit, (iii) probated copy of the Will,
(iv) death certificate of Late Sh. PP Rao and his wife, (v) the survivor
certificate, and (vi) if the executor is not ready to probate the Will then
all the legal heirs are required to lodge separate claim.
5. As a consequence of which the petitioner wrote a letter to the
respondent No.1/Bank stating that the probate of the Will is not
required as per Section 57 of the India Succession Act, 19251 as none
of the properties of the deceased are situated/located within the
territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai. However, all
other documents, were submitted by the Petitioner on 24.06.2019. In
reply, the respondent No.1/UCO Bank vide letter dated 09.09.2019,
raised three concerns with regards to: (i) probate of the Will, (ii) the

1 Act

survivor certificate of the legal heirs and (iii) the genuineness of the
Will, which as per them could only be proved after grant of probate of
the Will. While on the other hand, the Central Bank of India vide letter
dated 19.09.2019 stipulated that the succession certificate or probate
was not necessary for the release of money.
6. The petitioner in the writ/main matter assailed the decision of
the letter dated 20.10.2018 of the UCO Bank canvassing the plea that
the policies of both Central Bank of India and UCO Bank are
regulated by the Reserve Bank of India as they both are Nationalized
Banks, and therefore, there could be no two different policies for both
the Banks. It was pointed out that other Banks where the Testator had
accounts, namely the Central Bank of India, ICICI Bank, and Laxmi
Vilas Bank, have purportedly acknowledged the copy of the Will and
proceeded to disburse the funds in the absence of a requisite probate.
7. The Petitioner approached this court by filing a Writ
Petition/main matter against the letter dated 09.09.2019 issued by the
respondent No.1 /Bank and for the release of funds on the ground that
the Central Bank of India has already released the funds lying in the
account of the deceased, hence stating that two Nationalized Banks
having pan India presence, cannot operate with two different policies.
This Court vide order dated 01.11.2019 passed the following
directions:-

“……5. As would be evident, these objections have been raised by
respondent No.1 bank vis.-a-vis. the request made by the petitioner
for release of money to her which is available in the account(s)
maintained by her deceased father-in-law with the respondent

No.1/ UCO Bank.
5.1 To be noted, the petitioner is said to be the executor of the Will
dated 29.6.2017. This Will was executed by the deceased Senior
Advocate, Mr. P.P. Rao. Concededly, even according to the
counsel for respondent No.1 /UCO bank, in Delhi, a Will is not
required to be probated.
6. Therefore, objection No.1 and 3, as articulated in respondent
No.1 /UCO bank’s letter dated 9.9.2019 will not survive.
7. The only other objection, which has been put forth by
respondent No.1 /UCO bank concerns the furnishing of a Survivor
Members Certificate by the petitioner.
8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Surviving Members
Certificate will be submitted within a period of two weeks from
today. At this stage, counsel for respondent No.1/UCO bank says
that a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) is also required to be
furnished, in the form of an affidavit in favour of the petitioner
from other legal heirs of the deceased.
9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an affidavit to the effect
of the legal heirs will be submitted along with the Surviving
Members Certificate issued by the appropriate authority.
10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that
if the aforementioned documents are furnished, then, the money
available in the account of the deceased Senior Advocate, Mr. P.P.
Rao, maintained with the respondent No.1/UCO Bank will be
released forthwith, to the executor (i.e., the petitioner)”

8. However, she received a letter dated 28.02.2020 whereby she
was called upon to submit the following documents:-

“1. Surviving certificate has to be issued in favor of all three
beneficiaries as mentioned in the will.
2. Affidavits submitted by the one beneficiary require proper
identification of deponent.
3. A separate affidavit require from other two beneficiaries as they
are major.
4. All three beneficiaries are required to submit No Objection
Certificate in favor of Ms Pavani in the form of affidavits.”

9. The petitioner filed the instant contempt petition pointing out
that although she has complied with the aforesaid directions in the

order dated 01.11.2019 by availing legal heirs certificate/surviving
members certificate dated 27.01.2020 from the office of the Tehsildar
Dadri and also submitted the No Objection Certificate dated
04.11.2019 in the form of an affidavit; and called upon the UCO Bank
to release the funds in terms of the aforesaid order, the same has not
been done, and therefore, she has sought initiation of civil contempt
proceedings against the concerned officials of the UCO
Bank/respondent No. l.
10. On the filing of the present contempt petition, this court passed
the following directions vide order dated 02.03.2020:-

“During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
Respondent bank on his part does not dispute the fact that the only
surviving son of the deceased executor of the Will has already
given the NO Objection Certificate (NOC). In other words, it can
be said that the genuineness of the Will is not in dispute. Ld.
counsel for the Respondent bank also comes forward to submit that
he has now the instructions to state that the case of the petition has
been processed and sanctioned to give effect to the subject Will by
the AGM and Branch Head of the UCO Bank. If that be so, it
should be given effect to, latest, by tomorrow.”

11. On the following date of hearing, it was brought to the attention
of the Court that the son of the testator, namely Mr. Praveen Pavani,
presently residing at House. No. 143,Sector 15A, Noida, Uttar Pradesh
-201301 who had apparently given his “no objection” on an affidavit
dated 04.11.2019, approached the UCO Bank disputing the above
dated affidavit. Based on this challenge, a notice was been issued to
Mr. Praveen Pavani, who filed a reply-affidavit dated 03.03.2020 inter
alia to the effect that he had no knowledge of the pendency of
W.P.(C)1152/2019 and his consent was not taken before filing the
same; and that he never executed any NOC/affidavit dated

04.11.2019; and upon receiving a call from UCO Bank, Supreme
Court Branch, on 03.03.2020 it was informed that a huge amount was
being transferred from the account of his late father Sh. P.P. Rao to
the account of the petitioner on the basis of the orders of this Court,
and thus, he made a representation in the bank along with an affidavit
dated 03.03.2020 to the fact that he had not executed any
affidavit/NOC dated 04.11.2019.
12. The UCO Bank has also filed a short reply through Sh. Akshay
Kumar, S/o Sh. Jogender Singh, who was then working as Assistant
General Manager at Supreme Court Branch, Supreme Court
Compound, New Delhi and it is stated that although the directions of
the Court were complied in terms of the order dated 02.03.2020,
however, Mr. Praveen Pavani visited the bank on 03.03.2020 and
since he claimed that he had not executed any affidavit/NOC dated
04.11.2019, the bank wrote a letter dated 04.03.2020 to the petitioner
informing her that although the amount has been released in her
account, the same has been marked under „lien”.
13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on careful
perusal of the records, besides written submissions filed on behalf of
the Noticee Mr. Praveen Pavani2, needless to state that this court is
primarily concerned with enforcing its directions dated 01.11.2019. It
is evident from the record that the petitioner has complied with the
directions of this Court and on the moving of the present contempt
petition, respondent No.1/UCO bank had also complied with the
directions of this Court except, that subsequently a lien has been

2 No written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner
3 (2001) 4 SCC 325
4 (2009) 10 SCC 223
5 2019 SCC OnLine SC 920

imposed on the amount released in view of the objections raised by
the Noticee Mr. Praveen Pavani.
14. First things first, as was held by this Court while passing the
directions vide order dated 01.11.2019, in view of Section 57 r/w
Section 213 of the Act, there is no mandate in law that the Will should
be probated since admittedly the Will was executed in Delhi and the
properties covered in the Will are not found in the local or the original
jurisdiction of High Court Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.
Reference can be invited to decision in Clarence Pais v. Union of
India3, besides FGP Ltd. v. Saleh Hooseini Doctor & Ors.4; Kanta
Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav & Ors.5; Harvinder Singh and Ors.
v. Ranjit Kaur & Ors.6.
15. That being the case, this Court categorically directed the Bank
that they shall release the amount which is in the Bank account of the
deceased/testator to the bank account of the petitioner, subject to the
petitioner submitting surviving members certificates of the other Legal
Heirs of the deceased/testator. Once NOC dated 04.11.2019 had been
submitted by the petitioner purportedly signed and attested by the
Noticee Mr. Praveen Pavani (ex-husband), the concerned official
Bank had no business to create any lien over the amount credited to
the bank account to the petitioner without any directions from this
Court. At the cost of repetition, such directions have been passed on
02.03.2020 and evidently in his anxiety, the concerned official of the

6 2011 SCC OnLine Del 257

Bank attempted to over reach the directions of this Court by not only
informing the Noticee Mr. Praveen Pavani about the directions of the
Court but also by creating a lien over the amount so transferred. The
said action on the part of the concerned official of the Bank is patently
a case of civil contempt amounting to wilful and deliberate
disobedience to the directions passed by this Court on 01.11.2019.
16. What is unfathomable is that the Bank official did not even
consider it proper to seek any clarification from this Court despite
having a battery of lawyers. The act committed by the concerned
official of the Bank amounts to manifestly impeding the course of
administration of justice and thereby attempting to wriggle out the
directions passed by this Court. The concerned official clearly and
deliberately failed to comply with the order dated 01.11.2019 in its
letter and spirit in the face of the fact that there was no dispute
regarding the validity of the Will executed by the deceased/testator
before his death and there was a clear and unambiguous disposition of
the properties by the deceased/testator, who appeared to be in a sound
state of mind at the time of executing the Will.
17. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is the ex-daughter-
in-law of the deceased/testator who was married to the Noticee Mr.
Praveen Pavani and they have since got separated and yet the intention
of the deceased/testator was to appoint his ex-daughter-in-law as the
executor of the Will. It cannot be overlooked that the Noticee Mr.
Praveen Pavani has chosen not to file any criminal complaint or
proceedings disputing the authenticity of NOCs dated 04.11.2019

submitted to the Bank. It is but apparent that for some inexplicable
reasons he has chosen to put hindrance in the execution of the Will of
the testator with regard to the disposition of the properties. The two
children who are the Legal Heirs and grand children of the
deceased/testator and the children of the petitioner have filed a civil
suit bearing No. CS(OS). 755/2020 before the Court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, wherein, not
only the petitioner but also the Noticee Mr. Praveen Pavani have been
impleaded as the defendants, and apparently the plaintiff”s children
are seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining
them from creating any hindrance in the execution of the Will dated
29.06.2017.
18. In view of the forgoing discussion, this Court prima facie holds
that the concerned Chief Manager of UCO Bank, posted as on
02.03.2020 with the Supreme Court Branch, Supreme Court
Compound, New Delhi, was guilty of committing civil contempt of
the directions of this Court dated 01.11.2019. Therefore, a show cause
notice be issued to him with the directions to appear in person and to
give reasons/justification as to why he should not be punished for
wilfully disobeying and not complying with the directions of this
Court. In the meanwhile, the Bank/respondent No.1 also has to purge
itself from the contempt and the Chief Manager of UCO Bank,
Supreme Court Branch, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi is
directed to immediately release or vacate the lien and allow the
executor i.e. the petitioner to operate the bank account as per the

wishes of deceased/testator. The compliance report be filed before the
next date of hearing.
19. Show cause notice in accordance with the aforesaid direction be
issued to the concerned Chief Manager of UCO Bank, Supreme Court
Branch, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi for appearance on
08.01.2024.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2023
sp