B. Sridevi v. The Branch Manager

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI B.Sridevi W/o Late D.Satish Raj, 85/4, Kamaraj Nagar, Burma Colony, New Washermenpet, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Branch Manager Canara bank, Broadway Branch, No.64, Broadway, Near Flower Bazaar Police station, Chennai - 600 108.

2. The Regional Manager Canara Bank, Spencer Towers, 770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

..Respondent(s) PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent bank to

forthwith release the matured fixed deposit amounts standing in FD Account Nos.1374415000026 and 1374415000027 standing in the name of late Smt.Kasthuri to the petitioner, being her only surviving Class - I legal heir and not to insist upon a no objection certificate from the nominee, as such insistence is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.G.Dilli Babu For Respondent(s):

Mr.G.Sreedhar, Standing Counsel

ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the respondent bank to release the matured amounts in two fixed deposits standing in the name of late Mrs.D.Kasthuri to the petitioner, who is none other than the only surviving Class I heir and not to insist a no objection from the nominee.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner claims to be the daughter in law of one Mrs.D.Kasthuri. During her life time, the said Mrs.D.Kasthuri opened two fixed deposits with the first respondent. Both the fixed deposits were matured even on 30.6.2020. The husband of the petitioner predeceased his mother. Subsequently, the said Mrs.D.Kasthuri also passed away. As both the amounts lying in the fixed deposits were matured, the petitioner approached the first respondent on several occasions for release of the amounts. However, the first respondent bank insisted that the petitioner must get a no objection certificate from one Mr.Lakshmi Ganthan. Hence the writ petition.

4. In the typed set of papers filed along with the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner enclosed the death certificates of both her husband and her mother in law. She also enclosed the legal heirship certificate, which would clearly show that the petitioner is the only surviving legal heir. It is also seen that the petitioner sent a legal

notice dated 26.3.2025 to the first respondent seeking redressal. Though almost one year has passed, the petitioner has not seen the colour of the coin. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent can be directed to consider the said legal notice as a representation and pass appropriate orders thereon.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to treat the legal notice dated 26.3.2025 sent by the petitioner as the representation, on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 17-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rli

To

1. The Branch Manager Canara bank, Broadway Branch, No 64 Broadway, Near Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai 600 108.

2. The Regional Manager Canara Bank, Spencer Towers, 770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

M.DHANDAPANI,J RLI 17-03-2026