Shenbagam v. The General Manager
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP NO. 48976 & 48978 OF 2025
1. Shenbagam 2.Subashini Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The General Manager Indian Bank First Floor, P.B. No.2234, Gee Gee Complex, No.42, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 2.The Deputy General Manager Indian Bank, First Floor, P.B. No.2234, Gee Gee Complex, No.42, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 3.The Zonal Manager Indian Bank, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 4.The Branch Manager Indian Bank, Pudupet Branch, Opposite Don Bosco School, Pannur, Thiruvallur District-602 108 5.Muniyammanl
6.Jamuna 7.Sathiyamoorthy Respondent(s) PRAYER; Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writs of Mandamus directing the 4th Respondent Bank to disburse the funds lying in savings bank account No.6177269230 standing in the name of Late Mr. Narayanan only in accordance with a succession certificate in respect of the said funds.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s. S. Saravanan
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 4th Respondent Bank to disburse the funds lying in savings bank account No.6177269230 standing in the name of Late Mr. Narayanan only in accordance with a succession certificate in respect of the said funds.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners father Narayanan was maintaining savings Bank account in 4 th respondent Bank. The said Narayanan died on 06.09.2025. He was survived by his wife, daughters and son as his legal heirs. The amount lying in the account number of the deceased and the property of all his legal heirs above referred. A nominee of the account cannot become a sole legal heir of the funds lying in a bank account. The petitioner made a representation on 30.09.2025 to the 4 th respondent about the litigation process.
However, the 4 th respondent Bank issued an undated letter to the first petitioner
stating that they would settle the funds to the nominee in absence of a Court order. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may direct the respondents to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders within the reasonable time as fixed by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
5. Considering the fact that already the petitioners representation was rejected by the 4 th respondent. However, without challenging the said order or without filing any succession OP, the petitioners have filed only mandamus, which is not sustainable and the same is not maintainable.
6. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12-11-2025 Rli
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The General Manager Indian Bank First Floor, P.B. No.2234, Gee Gee Complex, No.42, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 2.The Deputy General Manager Indian Bank, First Floor, P.B. No.2234, Gee Gee Complex, No.42, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 3.The Zonal Manager Indian Bank, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 4.The Branch Manager Indian Bank, Pudupet Branch, Opposite Don Bosco School, Pannur, Thiruvallur District-602 108
M.DHANDAPANI J.
rli 12-11-2025