Nomination Before Marriage

The only image that the self-styled Legal Analyst "JIGYASU" has been able to sustain has been that of a spoiler of the standing LCI in ridiculing and abusing the querists as well the experts!

Originally posted by : Hemant Agarwal
	This fellow nick named "JIGYASU" claims himself as a "Legal Analyst" For his various posts, it seems that he is here only to Criticise & Ridicule other expert participants.   This fellow nick named "JIGYASU" never provides any answers to any queriest and only keeps on twisting his perverted words.   BEWARE OF HIS FRUSTRATION & NEFARIOUS HABIT. Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

@ Mr. Hemant Agarwal,

What your post reveals is merely your irritation, desperation and frustration about your inability to compete with my knowledge, whenever I asked you to come forward with the legal position about your own contentiosn. I sure, by demonstrating such type of your resentment against me in public forum, you cannot prove that you have any knowledge superior to my knowledge. Rest assured, you will always find my knowledge far more superior than yourr theoretical contentions having no base of the real law on property matters. Instead of showing your frustration, you could better have provided some legally supported section under which you claim that  a nominee is merely a trustee of the legal heirs.

I thow this challenge again on you to quote any section of any relevant law, which specifcially states that a nominee is merely a trustee of the legal heirs and has to distribute the property of the deceased among the legal heirs in the absence of a succession certificate. Please don't quote any procedural circular of RBI, as RBI is not the authority to frame any law for and on behalf of legislature of India or state. OTHERWISE, TRY TO LEARN, WHERE YOU HAVE THE NEED TO ENHANCE YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE.

Originally posted by : P. Venu
	The only image that the self-styled Legal Analyst "JIGYASU" has been able to sustain has been that of a spoiler of the standing LCI in ridiculing and abusing the querists as well the experts!

@ Mr. P. Venu,

Please read my last message meant for Mr. Hemant Agarwal, The same message applies on you also. I know you are also frustrated having not found any answer to any of my questions, whenever I raised against your similar contention treating a nominee as merely a trustee of the heirs of the deceased. 

If you are really an expert lawyer, why you don't also come forward with the specific section of any relevant law, which prescribes a nominee, merely as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased person. Try to have this challenge now. The irony is that some people like you believe in hearsay, rather than the real law on the subject matter, which I do not contribute.

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
	@legal analyst, when members pointing finger, then it's your responsibility to clear the doubt.

The answer to anyone's pointing out of finger is to show a big thumb to particularly a consultant,, like you, who seem to prefer to make illicite source of income based on merely borrowed knowledge and not of his own. 

Please...Please do not continue any further personal posts.  The better judge of guidance is always who receives guidance.  They are Gods.  Let them use the guidance.  Every member who wishes to reply is precious and valuable, as there is real intention of helping and that is most human.  We may err, but that is not a fault, as there is some one who can correct.  At the end let member have the satisfaction of getting good response and not to take the forum as otherwise.  This is a good forum and experts please strengthen it further.

@Jigyasu, Legal analyst

I shall give you answer to your question to Advocates Hemant Aggrawal and P. Venu. Please see the attached High Court judgment.

@Jigyasu, Legal analyst

I shall give you answer to your question to Advocates Hemant Aggrawal and P. Venu. Please see the attached High Court judgment.

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	@Jigyasu, Legal analyst I shall give you answer to your question to Advocates Hemant Aggrawal and P. Venu. Please see the attached High Court judgment. Attached File : 84227 20180105143610 889946704 nominee does not get absolute title to the property.pdf

@Dr. MPS Ramani,

Your post and quotation has now confirmed my earlier belief that you solely depend upon copy & paste of some or the other irrelevant text without applying your own mind or going through the original docuyments. Now I can say will full belief that I can prove your doctorate thesis as merely copied and pasted document even to the extent of more than 50%.

Your problem is that you always try to harp some wrong tune and depend solely on reading between the lines from the tit bits appearing here and there in the newspapers and journals by keeping at bay of the legal provisions of the main laws amended from time to time. You always try to depend upon some court judgments, which are always subject to nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the individual cases.

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WHAT SMALL PIECE OF DOCUMENT YOU ATTACHED IS NOT A JUDGMENT. I REALLY WONDER, IF A DOCTORATE LEVEL PERSONALITY TREATS A SMALL SNPPET OF SOME NEWS PAPER QAS A COURT JUDGMENT. You should ALSO know that the Appeal No.313 of 2015, on the basis of which you tried to boast was actually dismissed with no order as to costs. Better read the judgment, as a whole, as you tried only a piece of secondary data provided by some newspaper or journal or website.

Moreover, if some lazy and half prepared lawyer fails to bring forth the actial provisions of law in an appropriate manner and the judgment gets skewed that does not mean that a judgment substitutes the main provisions of law. Since your stature is of a doctotate level, you should not expect me to give you spoon feeding tutorial in law, Actually, you don't deserve also to be given a spoon feeding. I can only suggest you to read the nomination part of the amended Insurance laws as well as that of the Banking Regulation Act 1949. You will get the right answer and will stop depending upon tit bits appearing in the newspapers, journals or websites.

.

Observation of Mr. Jigyasu seems to have much real worth on legal angle.

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
	Sir, I born naked with empty biological brain, I borrow knowledge by all means which you hardly conclude. Its my fortune I can't share my identity to some extent [PROTOCOL OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA under PRESIDENTIAL RULE] so why not you share your mobile no. to directly check your analyzing report.

@Ramesh Singh,

Of course, good confession about your empty biological brain.

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
	Perceptible WELCOME Sir @JIGYASU the legal analyzer to FILTER your knowledge.

@ Ramesh Singh,

I filtered you, that should be enough for you.

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
	Sir, instead of posting on dependency of this net portal, why not share your identity. Let be satisfy who knows who?

A person shying to reveal his identity by taking a false plea of "PROTOCOL OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA under PRESIDENTIAL RULE" should not expect others to befriend with him. Keep your identity reserved for the President of India. 

The person with pseudonym Jigyasu styles himself as a legal analyst. In the debates in this Forum he tries to browbeat respected advocates and others with abuses and invectives instead of sound objective arguments. Another pretender legal analyst blindly beats the drum for him. I find Jigyasu is a pretender and a charlatan with no knowledge of law and still less of the way judgments are arrived at based on law, arguments, practices and last but not the least past judgments of equivalent or higher courts. He challenged two experienced lawyers as follows:

@ Mr. Hemant Agarwal,

“I throw this challenge again on you to quote any section of any relevant law, which specifically states that a nominee is merely a trustee of the legal heirs and has to distribute the property of the deceased among the legal heirs in the absence of a succession certificate. Please don't quote any procedural circular of RBI, as RBI is not the authority to frame any law for and on behalf of legislature of India or state. OTHERWISE, TRY TO LEARN, WHERE YOU HAVE THE NEED TO ENHANCE YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE”

@ Mr. P. Venu,

“If you are really an expert lawyer, why you don't also come forward with the specific section of any relevant law, which prescribes a nominee, merely as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased person. Try to have this challenge now. The irony is that some people like you believe in hearsay, rather than the real law on the subject matter, which I do not contribute.”

The two experts ignored his challenge. They would have thought “here is a novice who doesn’t know how courts decide and give judgments on issues”.

When there are more than one law for succession or, for that matter, for any purpose, disputes arise and the affected parties go to court. For instance if a person acquires some property as a nominee, another person, who feels that he should have got the property, as an heir or a successor, will challenge the transfer to the nominee. There are hundreds of cases decided by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. In all the cases the courts have always decided in favor of the person as per the Succession Act and not as per the sections for nomination in the respective Acts.

As a reply to the challenges posed to the two advocates I forwarded an extract from a judgment on an appeal before a Division Bench of Bombay High Court as recently as on 1st December, 2016. And what did the charlatan do? He abused me. He spoke derisively of my Ph.D., which was not on the subject of law and which was unwarranted. Then he reproduced the last line of the same judgment, which dismissed the appeal. The other charlatan applauded him va va.

The judgment is exhaustive, deals with all the laws having nomination clauses, compares them with the laws on succession. It finally gives the judgment on the two appeals. The judgment runs into 49 pages. But our charlatan, who alleged that I didn’t read the whole judgment, concerned himself only with the last sentence. He wants the members to think that the views of the two advocates and my views have been thrown overboard by the judgment.

The question to be decided by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court was as follows:

The appeal was filed by a nominee which was dismissed. What was the meaning of that?  One charlatan was bluffing and the other was beating the drum for him.

The judgment dealt with the following acts:

1. Sections 109A and 109B of the Companies Act, 1956

2. Section 9.11 of the Depositories Act, 1996.

3. Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

4. Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

5. Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949

6. The National Savings Certificates Act, 1959

7. Provident Fund and the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	The person with pseudonym Jigyasu styles himself as a legal analyst. In the debates in this Forum he tries to browbeat respected advocates and others with abuses and invectives instead of sound objective arguments. Another pretender legal analyst blindly beats the drum for him. I find Jigyasu is a pretender and a charlatan with no knowledge of law and still less of the way judgments are arrived at based on law, arguments, practices and last but not the least past judgments of equivalent or higher courts. He challenged two experienced lawyers as follows:   @ Mr. Hemant Agarwal, “I throw this challenge again on you to quote any section of any relevant law, which specifically states that a nominee is merely a trustee of the legal heirs and has to distribute the property of the deceased among the legal heirs in the absence of a succession certificate. Please don't quote any procedural circular of RBI, as RBI is not the authority to frame any law for and on behalf of legislature of India or state. OTHERWISE, TRY TO LEARN, WHERE YOU HAVE THE NEED TO ENHANCE YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE”   @ Mr. P. Venu, “If you are really an expert lawyer, why you don't also come forward with the specific section of any relevant law, which prescribes a nominee, merely as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased person. Try to have this challenge now. The irony is that some people like you believe in hearsay, rather than the real law on the subject matter, which I do not contribute.” The two experts ignored his challenge. They would have thought “here is a novice who doesn’t know how courts decide and give judgments on issues”. When there are more than one law for succession or, for that matter, for any purpose, disputes arise and the affected parties go to court. For instance if a person acquires some property as a nominee, another person, who feels that he should have got the property, as an heir or a successor, will challenge the transfer to the nominee. There are hundreds of cases decided by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. In all the cases the courts have always decided in favor of the person as per the Succession Act and not as per the sections for nomination in the respective Acts. As a reply to the challenges posed to the two advocates I forwarded an extract from a judgment on an appeal before a Division Bench of Bombay High Court as recently as on 1st December, 2016. And what did the charlatan do? He abused me. He spoke derisively of my Ph.D., which was not on the subject of law and which was unwarranted. Then he reproduced the last line of the same judgment, which dismissed the appeal. The other charlatan applauded him va va. The judgment is exhaustive, deals with all the laws having nomination clauses, compares them with the laws on succession. It finally gives the judgment on the two appeals. The judgment runs into 49 pages. But our charlatan, who alleged that I didn’t read the whole judgment, concerned himself only with the last sentence. He wants the members to think that the views of the two advocates and my views have been thrown overboard by the judgment. The question to be decided by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court was as follows:     Whether nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed under Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 read with the Bye-laws under the Depositories Act, 1996 is entitled to the beneficial ownership of the shares or securities subject matter of nomination to the exclusion of all other persons who are entitled to inherit the estate of the holder as per the law of succession?  Whether a nominee of a holder of shares or securities on the basis of the nomination made under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with the Byelaws under the Depositories Act, 1996 is entitled to all rights in respect of the shares or securities subject matter of nomination to the exclusion of all other persons or whether he continues to hold the securities in trust and in a capacity as a beneficiary for the legal representatives who are entitled to inherit securities or shares under the law of inheritance?  Whether the bequest made in a Will executed in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of shares or securities of the deceased supersedes the nomination made under the provisions of Section 109A and Bye-law No.9.11 framed under the Depositories Act, 1996?   The appeal was filed by a nominee which was dismissed. What was the meaning of that?  One charlatan was bluffing and the other was beating the drum for him. The judgment dealt with the following acts: Sections 109A and 109B of the Companies Act, 1956 Section 9.11 of the Depositories Act, 1996. Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Section 30 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 The National Savings Certificates Act, 1959 Provident Fund and the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

@ Dr. MPS RAMANI,

BRAVO, to what question the expert lawyers have not yet been able to find answer, a non-expert poser preferred to have found the solution. Dr. Ramani has used the term "charlatan" for me, but literally and practically also, through his latest post, he seemed to have proved himself to be so.

HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF YOUR ABOVE POST, MY BELIEF IS CONFIRMED THAT I WAS NOT WRONG IN MY STATEMENT THAT Dr. MPS Ramani's problem is that he "always try to harp some wrong tune and depend solely on reading between the lines from the tit bits appearing here and there in the newspapers and journals by keeping at bay of the legal provisions of the main laws amended from time to time. You always try to depend upon some court judgments, which are always subject to nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the individual cases."

Probably, Dr. MPS Ramani also have the need to get his eyes checked from some specialist. He preferred to overlook what I asked in my post. I did not ask to mention the names of the Acts noted or taken in to consideration in the judgment. I was quite specifica in asking for the provisions of sepecific sections of the relevant Acts wich specify the nominee as merely the trustee of the legal heirs to distribute the wealth of the deceased among the legal heirs, as against his right.

NOW I WOULD SPECIFICALLY REQUEST Dr. MPS RAMANI TO GO THROUGH HIS QUOTED ACTS, BY HIMSELF, FIND OUT AND INTIMATE, IF ANY OF THESE ACTS STATES ANYWHERE IN ANY SENTENCE THAT A NOMINEE IS MERELY A TRUSTEE APPOINTED BY A DECEASED TO DISBURSE HIS WEALTH ONLY TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED, AS AGAINST HIS OWN ENTITLEMENS, AS A NOMINEE.

However, Dr. MPS Ramani will be welcome any time to expose himself in anyway he likes, as like he tried to expose himself with his latest post.