In addition to nominations, a person must prepare a will. It is also advisable to ensure that the content of the will is harmonized, so that the authorized representatives and legal heirs are identical because of the will. The following guidelines on the appointment of banks can be referred to: A well-implemented and well-thought-out succession plan should avoid conflicting intentions. In the example above, it would have been preferable for the deceased to name the bank accounts in his wife`s name and write a will that she bequeathed to him first and, if she died before him, to his children. If the wife had survived her husband, her will could have left her husband`s account (which is now part of her estate) to her children. An even better approach would have been for the husband to open separate accounts in the name of each of his children. Each new account could be individually named for the benefit of his children and bequeathed to them in a will. His wife could also have had an independent report. If this approach had been chosen, the same result would have been achieved, but without conflict or confusion. Supreme Court: The House of Justices Ashok Bhushan* and R. Subhash Reddy ruled that while the heirs of a woman`s father are included as a person who can potentially succeed, it cannot be presumed that they are strangers and not family members as women.

However, NCLAT relied on the Supreme Court`s decision in World Wide Agencies Pvt Ltd(4), which held that an interpretation that the legal representatives of a deceased shareholder cannot have the same rights as a partner would be a hypertechnical view contrary to justice. The Supreme Court went on to say: For example, a man bequeaths his bank accounts equally to his children in his will. During his lifetime, he made an appointment in favour of his wife. After his death, his wife kept the accounts only in the name of her children until the estate was completed. This could lead to a family dispute if the children claim the bank balance and their mother refuses to hand it over. While these cases continue to reinforce the fact that legal heirs are the rightful owners of a deceased`s property, confusion remains as to how this relates to nominees. To be clear, a nominee (due to an appointment by the deceased during his or her lifetime) acts only as trustee on behalf of the legitimate legal heirs and retains all assets until the estate or inheritance has been decided and implemented. The NCLAT, taking note of the above remarks, upheld the NCLT`s order and decided that upon the death of a shareholder, the shares would be transferred to the legal heirs and not to the nominee.

An application does not mean that the amount or share belongs to the candidate. In this case, in the original application, the defendant had sold 1.68 acres of land, although the land allocated to him at the time of partition was only 1.58 acres. He then attempted to remove and destroy the wooden fence and attempted to expropriate the plaintiff, the owner of the neighbouring property, by force, which led to a permanent injunction. After his death, his heirs, in violation of the Permanent Disposition Order, attempted to forcibly expropriate the holder of the Decree of his property. The National Company Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) ruled in the recent case of Oswal Greentech v. Mr. Pankaj Oswal and Ors (Company Appeal (AT) No 410 of 2018) on the issue of maintainability of a petition alleging oppression and mismanagement of a corporation according to which, on the death of a shareholder, shares are transferred to his legal heirs and not to the appointed agent of those shares. The agent of the shares only holds the shares until the decision to acquire in favour of the legal heirs. Oswal has hopefully solved this problem once and for all. As mentioned above, individuals should note that there is a clear difference between the rights of nominees and legal heirs to ensure that their estate passes smoothly to their heirs.

The court held in admitting and ruling on the appeal that the Government had not submitted a rule requiring the applicant for family maintenance to produce the documents of the first wife, so that this instruction should be abolished and, as regards the husband`s document, the non-objection of all legal heirs of a deceased person is not a prerequisite for the issuance of a certificate of survival. The court then ordered the applicant to apply to the sub-division magistrate concerned for a certificate of survival for the deceased Nani Gopal Roy and then to apply to the State authorities for the release of her family pension. [Maya Rani Roy v. State of Tripura, 2020 SCC OnLine Tri 62 , decided on 11-02-2020] ➢ In the event of the death of a deceased member, a right must have been transferred to the legal representatives, the name of the deceased member is always registered in the register of the company. The applicant`s lawyer, N.K.P. Sinha, argued that the earlier application had been rejected for failure to indict the other legal heirs, whereas in the present case the legal heirs had been registered, but the court had found that no such appeal had ever been sought in the applicant`s earlier application. In addition, the lawyer argued that the daughter-in-law was entitled to the amount due to the absence of the originally deceased employee. In kale. v. In its capacity as Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119, the Court had examined in detail all the contours of the family settlement. The Court held that the term “family” must be understood in a broader sense, so that it includes not only close relatives or legal heirs, but also persons who may have some kind of prior title, the appearance of a claim or even a spes successionis.

In that case, Kale, with whom his mother`s two sisters had reached a family settlement, was not a legitimate heir within the meaning of the U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939, but the family settlement with Kale was upheld by the Supreme Court. On November 13, 2018, the NCLT accepted the legal heir`s application and ruled that the application could be granted. The original shareholder died on 29 March 2016, leaving four legal heirs (under the Hindu Succession Act 1956). Following the death of the original shareholder, the nominee filed an application for registration as a shareholder on April 4, 2016, which was approved by the Corporation. The earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar(2) had settled the controversy over the rights of legal heirs as opposed to nominees. In that case, the court ruled that the rights of legal heirs replace the rights of the shareholder appointed by a shareholder. This decision was upheld in the Oswal case. Supreme Court: Regarding the applicability of the decree of permanent injunction against the legal representatives of the judicial debtor, the Chamber of Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ stated that generally personal acts with the person die, but this principle applies to limited types of means and therefore with regard to the specific provisions of Article 50 CCP, Such a decree may be enforced against a legal representative.

Accordingly, NCLAT concluded that in the event of a person`s death, his or her legal heirs are entitled to his or her property. Each nominee holds the assets only until the question of acquisition is decided in favour of the legal heirs. Thus, a nominee is a custodian of the deceased`s property until it is distributed among the legal heirs. (d) fourthly, the heirs of the father; and (e) the mother`s heirs. ➢ A legal representative of a deceased shareholder has the same rights as the shareholder, and denying these rights, including the right to file a petition in case of oppression and mismanagement in a company, would amount to a hyper-technical approach; Bombay High Court: R.D. Dhanuka, J., held that the assignment of land belonging to the legal heirs of a person whose property was self-acquired property would apply only to persons for whose benefit such a deed of assignment was executed.