Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 91/2023
DOLLY ANR Vs. STATE OF DELHI
18.02.2025
Lawyers are stated to be abstaining from work today.
File taken up on an application filed on behalf of
petitioners to restrain respondent no. 2/MCD from releasing
proportionate share of applicants/petitioners i.e. 1/7th share each of the
terminal benefits of the deceased lying with respondent no. 3 to 6.
Present : Sh. Amit Goswami, Ld. counsel for applicants/petitioners.
It is submitted by Ld. counsel for applicants/petitioners
that respondent no. 2/MCD has filed WS with the submissions that
service benefits of the deceased are being processed in the favour of the
nominee as per the GPF nomination form. It is prayed that MCD be
retrained from releasing 1/7th share each of the plaintiffs in the service
benefits/terminal benefits of the deceased as the relations between the
petitioners and respondent no. 3 to 6 is not cordial and it the MCD
release the benefits to respondent no. 3 to 6, then they will not
distribute the same among all the LRs and it will be difficult to
petitioners to recover the same. Reliance is placed upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Suman Kumari @ Suman Singh
Vs. Nand Kishore and Ors. (AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1579).
Submissions heard. Record perused.
It is settled law that nominees are only entitled to receive
the amount which was due and payable to the deceased and that they do
not become absolute owners of the money received. It is the duty of the
nominees to thereafter share the amount received with all the LRs under
the law of succession as applicable to them. Therefore, if any
organization/entity is releasing the amount due to the nominee as per its
Cont..........
-- 1 of 2 --
:: 2 ::
rules and regulations, the Court does not find any reason to restrain
them from releasing the same. The judgment on which the Ld. Counsel
for the applicants has placed reliance also states the law of nomination
and reiterates that any organization can release the amount due to the
nominee who has been nominated by the deceased. However, in the
facts particular to that case, the Hon’ble High Court directed that the
share of the petitioner be not released to the respondents. The said
judgment does not, in any manner, lay down that in all cases, the
organization/entity shall not release the amount payable to the nominee.
If the proposition of the petitioners is accepted, then no purpose would
be served by incorporating a nominee for the purpose of receiving any
amount due.
In the considered opinion of the Court, the judgment relied
upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner does not help the case of the
petitioner. The Court finds no reason to restrain MCD from releasing
the amount due and payable to the nominee. If it is the apprehension of
the petitioners that after receiving the amount, the nominee shall not
distribute it amongst all the LRs, the petitioners shall have the option to
resort to appropriate civil remedy to recover the said amount from the
nominee.
With these observations, the present application is
disposed off as dismissed.
File be taken up on pre-fixed date i.e. 07.05.2025.
(Mansi Malik)
ACJ/ARC (North-West)
Rohini Courts, Delhi/18.02.2025
-- 2 of 2 --