Nomination Before Marriage

Dear Mr. MPS Ramani,

Probably, besides Mr. Jigyasu, you are on the teaching spree to me also! Although I am not obliged to enter in to any argument with you on your half baked knowlerdge when you believe only on hearsay, yet to clear the clouds of your mind, I am responding to your post.

When you admit that there is no law that declares a nominee as a trustee, there remains no dispute on the issue. Anyway, your study can be appreciated, but is totally misdirected, as adventurous wihtout any specific aim or object.

About your assumption, "In law everything need not be expressed," Thay gives an inkling, as if you have been assigned with the responsibility to express anything you like, as and when you feel the need!

About your view, "Most probably the entire legal community in India holds the view that the rights of a successor under the succession act prevails over that of a nominee," I really wonder, if a learned person like you believes on hearsay without any substantial base. Further, a matter of mere commonsense, if you believe on some hearsay, it is not necessary for me to follow you to simply beieve on mere heresay unless convinced on the basis of provision in some specific law. You may better know that law is not based on hearsay, but a very systematically prescribed justice system for the conduct of business pertaining to its enforcement. Incapability of certain lawyers to stand against the misinterpretations of law cannot become the paracticable precedents in law.

Still further, a nomination once made by any person cannot be treated to have been cancelled or annuled under any law, unless the person making nomination cancells or changes the nomination, himself. Not even a court has been delegated the authority to cancel or treat his nomination as cancelled or changed on behalf of the deceased affter his death. If someone treats the nomination as annulled that can be fairly be treated as the breach of trust of the deceased that too after his death. His nimination is just like his will.

Here people are afraid of you or Jigyasu not because of your scholarship or knowledge but of your abusive invective language. Instead of answering members here why not you ANALYSE the Bombay High Court judgment of 01-12-2016 and enlighten all of us mediocres. It will be up to you whether you should pass judgments on the Division Bench judges or not.

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

Your last two posts fiull of immense irritation very well reveal that you have made it a prestige that your half baked knowledge as gathered from reading between the lines should be accepted by one and alll without raising a finger.

For your kind information, the Bombay HC Judgment had never been the subject matter of the query, but was the undue controversy created by you and others on nominee, as a trustee. It was you only who introduced your own between the line read tiny part of the very long judgment of the Bombay High Court. My nalaysis was with specific reference to the point of the targeted issue, not the judgment. But none of the contributors believing the nominee to be merely a trustee could support their assumption by the provisions of law.

About your request, I have already made clear, I do not intednt to prepare tutorials for you by wasting my precious time for such persons, So, asking for analysis of the judgment is quite uncalled for on your part.  Moreover, when you are not mentally ready to grab free & right knowledge what is the use of wasting any more time for you. However, you may better take admission in some law school to learn, whatever you want. If that is not liked, you may feel free to live with your own assumptions, pretentions or contentions.

About your allegation that people are afraid of me due to my language, it is quited a baseless allegation, as .that is your feeling out of your own irritated mind, when your theory gets scuttled down without haveing any base of law. None of the truthful and rational people can have reason reason or feel any need to be afraid of me. Only fake experts and others trying to mislead the gullible laymen have the need to be afraid of being exposed due to their own half baked knoledge.

Even in your case, when you have already admitted that you are a mediocre, you were not required to so forcefully present or support the false position. Even thereafter, when the qualified lawyers did not come forward to prove me legally wrong, it was only you, who came to their  rescue as if you were overqualified in law than those lawyers.

My free suggestion for you, better restrict your activities to your own field of expertise in engineering.

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
	Well done Dr. RAMANI Sir, Begger usually confident about donor while begging. Appreciate your response. @ P. Venu Sir, I was in doubt earlier, now nearer to confirmation.

@ Mr. Ramesh Singh,

You seem to feel enjoyment in adding fuel to the fire! Best of luck, if you have some alergy from proper knowledge. You may continue to enjoy giving consultancy with borroed half baked knowledge.

Originally posted by : Dhingra, 1962dcg@gmail.com
	Dear Mr. MPS Ramani, Probably, besides Mr. Jigyasu, you are on the teaching spree to me also! Although I am not obliged to enter in to any argument with you on your half baked knowlerdge when you believe only on hearsay, yet to clear the clouds of your mind, I am responding to your post. When you admit that there is no law that declares a nominee as a trustee, there remains no dispute on the issue. Anyway, your study can be appreciated, but is totally misdirected, as adventurous wihtout any specific aim or object. About your assumption, "In law everything need not be expressed," Thay gives an inkling, as if you have been assigned with the responsibility to express anything you like, as and when you feel the need! About your view, "Most probably the entire legal community in India holds the view that the rights of a successor under the succession act prevails over that of a nominee," I really wonder, if a learned person like you believes on hearsay without any substantial base. Further, a matter of mere commonsense, if you believe on some hearsay, it is not necessary for me to follow you to simply beieve on mere heresay unless convinced on the basis of provision in some specific law. You may better know that law is not based on hearsay, but a very systematically prescribed justice system for the conduct of business pertaining to its enforcement. Incapability of certain lawyers to stand against the misinterpretations of law cannot become the paracticable precedents in law. I think I do not feel the need to over stress upon a learned scholar that about nomination everything is expressed there in more than one law, except declaring nominee as a trustee. If not already known, you may perhpas like to know that a trustee can be appointed only in a legally created trust under the Indian Trusts Act, and cannot be assumed as a trustee by anyone for any purpose other than the legally created Trust. Moreover, the Indian trusts act nowhere makes any provision to appoint nominees or provides for any explanantion of said term. So, where is the question of treating a nominee as a trustee? However, I do not have any objection if you treat a nominee merely a trustee fror your mental satisfaction. Still further, a nomination once made by any person cannot be treated to have been cancelled or annuled under any law, unless the person making nomination cancells or changes the nomination, himself. Not even a court has been delegated the authority to cancel or treat his nomination as cancelled or changed on behalf of the deceased affter his death. If someone treats the nomination as annulled that can be fairly be treated as the breach of trust of the deceased that too after his death. His nimination is just like his will.

@ Mr. Dhingra,

Thanks for understanding my point of view. Thanks alaso for elaboration of the law point on nomination for easy understanding by one and all. But as you can see from the above posting of two readers, probably, for them not the law, but the hearsay is preferred more to become part of their knowledge.

You shut up full baked .   You know nothing, You are just a pretender. You and your drum beater have neither  the knowledge nor the intellectual ability to do any kind of analysis. You hide behind pseudonym and zero profile.You have nothing to report about. Have you ever seen the gates of a university? Have you ever written an article in LCI? Finally you give me tutorials, funny. If at least you had behaved like a decent student I could have taught you legal analysis

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	You shut up full baked .   You know nothing, You are just a pretender. You and your drum beater have neither  the knowledge nor the intellectual ability to do any kind of analysis. You hide behind pseudonym and zero profile.You have nothing to report about. Have you ever seen the gates of a university? Have you ever written an article in LCI? Finally you give me tutorials, funny. If at least you had behaved like a decent student I could have taught you legal analysis

@Dr. MPS Ramani,

Welcome with all your irritation, anger & frustration, as is clearly demonstrated from your latest post. Gates of Universities are tried to be seen only by theoretical persons like you. I practically deal with universities.

It is the cardinal rule in Interpretation of Statutes that the Statute should be read as a whole. As such, the provisions of Section 45 ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 has to construed in the light of the objective of the said Statue being to consolidate and amend the Law relating to banking. The provisions of Sections enables the Banking Institution discharge its liabilty as to the fund of the deceased person without too may a hassle so that Bank is not caught in the wrong foot in the eventuality of internecine dispute among the legal heirs/successors, leaving it to the nominee who has received the funds to distribute the estate/funds among the legal heirs/successors.

It could be that a mere literal understanding based on the isolated reading of the extant provision amy suggest the nominee to be the absolute owner of the funds. However, the principles of Interpretation of Statutes do not sanction such a narrow construction. Moreover, Interpretation of Statutes is the prerogative of the Courts; such interpretation amounts to declaration of the Law. And our Constitution mandates the Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all Courts. 

Such being the case, it is the Law of the Land that the nominee stand in the capacity of the trustee of the estate held by the deceased person.

It is a matter of common knowledge that words have got more than one meaning and also that Statutes provide different definition for one and same word. Hence, it would be too taxing to refer to the Indian Trust Act to understand what are the duties and obligations of a trustee in the ordinary parlance.

Dear Shri P. Venu,

Your present post reveals as if you are still not convinced about the very clear provision of Section 45ZA. If that be, I wonder about the reason for that. I am unable to understand with what specifci reason do you feel the doubt for interpretation of the very clear language of the section that expressly provide about "confer of right" on nominee AND "become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor." along with further clarity stating "to the exclusion of all other persons".

No doubt the Supreme Court of High Courts are empowered to interpret law, but only to the extent where the law is not clear in itself. Needless to emphasize, courts are not authorised to substitute the existing clearly laid law. If they feel the law is wrong to some extent they can declare that particular law as unconstitutional. That still remains within the power of the legislature either to delete, amend or revise that unclear law.

@ Mr. Dhingra,

Why to stress upon anyone to understand something as against their wishes, when they seem to intentionally keep the law beyond there reach. When they are not ready to reconcile with the reality no degree of law can also serve their purpose to understand law in its real perspective, what to say of any rational suggestion of anyone, like you.

Also, if someone believes that a very clearly framed law should always be twisted and they feel pleasure in that only, why such effort on your part would definitely go like on deaf ears? When anyone prefers to rely only on hearsay, assumptions, conventions, contentions or even pretensions, you cannot make them understand even to a bit of extent. Let them be happy with their own assumptions and contentions. Some people are destined to learn only from their own bitter experience of failures from time to time. Free knowledge may perhaps be indigestible for them.