If nomination is a substitute to testamentary succession
Recently, amendments were made in the banking laws about nomination facility for bank accounts & lockers facility, making provisions of multiple nominations, share of various nominees either successively or simultaneously.
Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025.
(Appointed date 01.11.2025, Gazette Notification dated 22.10.2025)
# 10. In the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, in section 45ZA, -
(a) in sub-section (1), for the words “one person”, the words “one or more persons not exceeding four, either successively or simultaneously” shall be substituted;
(b) after sub-section (1), the following sub-sections shall be inserted, namely: -
“(1A) Where the nomination is made successively in favour of more than one person under sub-section (1), the nomination shall be effective only in favour of one person in the order of priority specified in section 45ZG.
(1B) Where the nomination is made simultaneously in favour of more than one person under sub-section (1), the nomination shall be effective in favour of all such persons in proportion to which it is declared, and the following terms and conditions shall apply, namely: -
(a) the nomination shall not be made in favour of more than four persons;
(b) the nomination shall explicitly state the proportion of amount of deposit in percentage in favour of each nominee;
(c) the nomination shall be made in respect of the whole amount of deposit;
(d) if any nominee dies before receiving deposit from the banking company, the nomination in respect of such nominee alone shall become ineffective and the amount of deposit purported to be nominated in favour of deceased nominee shall be treated as if nomination had not been made in respect of that portion of deposit,
and any nomination which does not comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in clauses (a) to (c), shall be invalid, as if nomination had not been made by the depositor or all the depositors together, as the case may be.”.
# 11. In the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, in section 45ZC, in sub-section (1), for the words “one person”, the words “one or more persons not exceeding four, successively,” shall be substituted.
# 12. In the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, in section 45ZE, for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely: -
“(1) Where one or more individuals hire a locker from a banking company, whether such locker is located in the safe deposit vault of such banking company or elsewhere, the individual or, as the case may be, all the individuals together, may nominate one or more persons not exceeding four, successively, to whom, in the event of the death of the sole hirer or the death of all the hirers, the banking company may give access to the locker and liberty to remove the contents of the locker.”.
# 13. In the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, after section 45ZF, the following section shall be inserted, namely: -
“45ZG. (1) Where the nomination is made in favour of more than one person successively under sub-section (1) of section 45ZA or sub-section (1) of section 45ZC or sub-section (1) of section 45ZE, the nomination shall be effective only in favour of one person in the following order of priority, namely: -
(a) nomination of the first nominee shall be effective if that nominee survives the person or persons who made the nomination;
(b) nomination of the second nominee shall become effective only after the death of the first nominee;
(c) nomination of any nominee lower in the order of nomination shall become effective only after the death of all the nominees whose names are higher in the order of nomination.
(2) Where the order of nomination is not mentioned, persons shall be deemed to have been nominated in the order in which their names appear in the nomination.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the nominations made simultaneously in favour of more than one person under sub-section (1) of section 45ZA.”.
For a common citizen, the nomination facility in the banking accounts & lockers facility in the banks, with the above amendments gives an impression that nomination is sufficient to define & settle the succession of one’s financial assets (bank deposits & valuables kept in lockers). However the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Yezdani vs Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar had ruled that nomination does not confer succession ownership rights on the nominee.
Thus to provide for clarity & to avoid unnecessary litigation amongst legal heirs of the depositor, the Indian Succession Act, 1925, may kindly be considered to be amended to treat the nominations, registered under the provisions of various statutes, as deemed will unless contrary is mentioned in the subsequent will of the depositor/testator.
Case Law;
Hon'ble Supreme Court (2023.12.14) in Shakti Yezdani vs Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar [2023 INSC 1076, Civil Appeal No. 7107 Of 2017] held that.
“# 25. In an illuminating list of precedents, this Court as well as several High Courts have dealt with the concept of ‘nomination’ under legislations like the Government Savings Certificate Act 1959, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Life Insurance Act, 1939 and the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It would be apposite to refer to what the Court said on nomination, in reference to these legislations:
# 26. A consistent view appears to have been taken by the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of nomination under different statutes. It is clear from the referred judgments that the nomination so made would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made. In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs therefore have not been excluded by virtue of nomination.
XXXXXX
# 39. The appellants also contend that a nomination validly made under S. 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Bye-law 9.11 of the Depositories Act, 1996 constitutes a ‘statutory testament’ that overrides testamentary/intestate succession. It is worth noting that the argument of nomination as a ‘statutory testament’ in respect of instruments such as life insurance policies, government savings certificates, provident fund etc. were considered and emphatically rejected by this Court in multiple rulings.
# 40. In Sarbati Devi (supra) this Court held that nomination under S. 39 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938 does not contemplate a third line of succession styled as a ‘statutory testament’ and any amount paid to a nominee on the policy holder’s death forms a part of the estate of the deceased policy holder and devolves upon his/her heirs, as per testamentary or intestate succession. Further, in Ram Chander Talwar (supra), while discussing the rights of a nominee of a deceased depositor (S. 45-ZA(2) Banking Regulation Act, 1949), this court concluded that the right to receive the money lying in the depositor’s account was to be conferred on the nominee but the nominee would not become the owner of such deposits. The said deposit is a part of the deceased depositor’s estate and is subject to the laws of succession, that governs the depositor.”
Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is to create awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision, commercial or otherwise. One must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment