IN ma HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO}§E. "..V
DATED THIS THE 14:11 DAY 0? AUGUST 2o0g~ % _
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE A.}:'I*I;A»fl3g:(;i{;TI;IJAt3:A.:_':
WRIT PETITION NO.1OQO9/2C3QfS(S-Res.) " '
a
BETWEEN :
Kumsagayamada @
Lalina,
D/o.Late Antharaj, V
Aged amut: 54 ycars, 3 _ '
Residing at No.10¢';?, f;,.-' "
535* Cross, Anjana;p'pa1~.._ " ' " »
layout, New Extepsiozfz, "
Mysore Road,-,~-» A .
Bangalore-82. _ _ _' ...PETI'I'IONER
(By Sri.L5k:=§sh Adv.)
Movers Litniitéd, V -.
" Reprmficntéd
' "Asst. M:mag¢:r'~-_We1fa1'e
_ V.}_3a'n.ga1orc Chmplcx,
% ""1%'i.}3.' mjvso 2., '
* *_"i'J¢W[fThip;xasandra Post,
Bangazor.-:;~ 75. ...RESPOND_EN'I'
VT " Sri.'I'.Rajamm, Adv.)
-2-
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct
the respondent to reimburse the terminal benefits of the}
deceased employee Jayaxeg in favour of the petitiotieasee, ,4
as per Annexure ‘E’ “Probate of the Will Granted;’iii«i%«3i _.__
SC. No.76/2007 dated 30.01.2008, by setting aside-the .
Aiinexure ‘H’, }etter/ endorsement dated. .. –..3..’?,2′()Q8 V ” ”
issued by the respondent e .. T”
This writ petition coming
hearing, this day, the Court madeihe f’c:i_Iowing.:’v'”‘ ‘
ORDER…..Rf–.
On notice NIT.T.Ra’i6i;£§1Ii, Counsel has
entered appearance ii
2. E;fen__tiiongh.,_ ‘,:xie.i,ter is listed for preliminary
hearing, with. up for final disposal
i;1asm1ieh”as the “su_.V_bjectV:2naatter of this petition lies in a
. “very nanmb .eoii1pvass.
brief are; one Jayaraj was an
ivemployee ofrespondent-company. The said Jayaraj
to one Alphonse Theresa, but however,
no issues. He died on 25.01.2007. The ease
petitioner is that durm’ g his life time, the said Q
4/
-3-
Jayaraj had executed a Will in favour of his sister i.e.,
the petitioner and she is entitled to get the
benefits fipm the employer -~ respondent. The
it appears approached the respondent and A 3 1
settle the death benefits of the ‘A.
the said Will. But however,
settle the said claim, but issued eopy
of which is produced at to
obtain a probate of.tt1e the
petitioner institatéo’ ge:ae;7e;§.*oo*z.ooott In the said
proceedixlgo; ”” _ Jayaraj,
Smt.A1phonee as a party respondent.
In the ‘petitioner had taken notice
but however, the said notice
isso.ed_toVhe1§”£vaeV.t’VVretmned with a postal endorsement
as no siieh Hence, the petitioner had to take
‘ .notic.__e tvay of paper pubiication, which has been
“N*’otsAritt1stand1’ng the issuance of paper
at tpeclioiioation, Smt. Alphonse Theresa did not participate
me proceedings and P & Sc No.76/2007 filed under fl
J’
-4-
Seetian 276 of the Indian Succession Act was allowed.
The Probate of the Will dated 15.12.2006 in favour of
the petitioner was aiee issued subject to a condition_:”e._V_
that she shall execute an Indemnity bond with surety’ E
that effect. The petitioner claims nshehijjjiaie ii
withdrawn certain amount, which
Syndicaiae Bank, Mysore Road Bxfaiichwiionii the
the said Probate. She also made
respondent for release _a;i;:ioi1nt. But
however, an ‘H’
stating thézjc thexV’e*’.ia:”no’vV_i33peeific direction in the
pmoeedings foi–‘i’elea_ ‘ amount. Hence, this
pet;ition.,, ‘V
‘V Boovanahalli, lwrned counsel
for jietitioner submits that having regard
– » granted by the Court under the Indian
V.”-»_’~Si;:eoeeaio%l Act, there was no impediment for the
to release the said amount notwithstanding
there is no direction for release of the same.
5. Mr.T.Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent submits that since Smt. Alphonfi~::e
Theresa continued to be the Wife of the
inasmuch during his lifetime there were
proceedings, the endorsement issued’Ji’s’jus1fificd»;’
6. I have been taken the
It is not in dispute P
instituted in the Court orv’i7Add:eVer;ieic– Judge,
Bangalore City for gtettt er the Will
dated 15. ; it the said
Sectien 276 of the
indian the issuance of
ttetice piiofimtion Stat. Alphonse Theresa has
riot; the proceedings. Hence, ?robate was
the Will is alse made available at
. A perusal of the Will also discloses that
is entitled for the ternzlinal benefits of
Jayaraj. It is also noticed that the total sum
payable to the deceased employee was RS.11,70,018l’.fl
K’
/’
-5-
7. Having I’t’:’:$l’d to the fact that virtually
was no contest in the P 85 Se proceedings, I am A’
View that there should not have been any 3 T
the respondent to release the amottnt of X: T
petitioner. Indeed the respondent. is ”
safeguarded, if ultimately a claim ether
gonna. Hence, it is VL 1′ H the
circumstances to direct fifireeute an
indemnity bond_ gsteebe disbursed.
8. order is passed:
(a) _Petit:ienVieea1:1e\eedL. “””»LV
V. ., re§pendent° shali release the terminal
VA ” %*’..”‘I:1v:’_;’,’fa\ro11;1″ of the petitioner.
(e}._:’I’he. shall execute an Indemnity bond
T for file Iikesum.
“ii is issued and made absolute.
%/
-7.
9. Mr.’}’.Rajaram, learned counsel appearing
respondent is permitted to file his power in the ”
within four Wmks.
Scii\”j:% A %
%
SP8