Calcutta High Court
Citibank N.A vs Jyotirmoy Pal Choudhuri And Anr on 23 July, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OD-35 to 37
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APD/2/2025
WITH
CS/191/2012
CITIBANK N.A.
VS
JYOTIRMOY PAL CHOUDHURI AND ANR.
Wt36
APD/8/2024
SMT SONALI MAJUMDER
VS
JYOTIRMOY PAL CHAUDHURI AND ANR
Wt37
OCO/1/2025
CITIBANK N A
VS
JYOTIRMOY PAL CHAUDHURY AND ANR
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : 23rd July, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Manashi Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Dhilon Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Anirban Ghosh, Adv.
..for the appellant in APD/8/2024
Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abhradipta Tarafder, Adv.
..for Citibank NA
Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhransu Ganguly, Adv.
..for the plaintiff/respondent
2
Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.
The Court: This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree
dated April 25, 2024, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in
CS/191/2012, a suit filed by the present respondent no. 1.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that
the respondent/plaintiff is the brother of one Mrinmoy Pal Chaudhuri.
Shyamali Pal Chaudhuri was Mrinmoy's wife. The defendant no. 2 in the
suit is the sister of Shyamali, since deceased. Mrinmoy pre-deceased
Shyamali. Shyamali died in July, 2008. Mrinmoy and Shyamali did not have
any children.
Shyamali died intestate. Jyotirmoy applied for succession
certificate in respect of the properties left behind by Shyamali. The
properties of Shyamali included a bank account held with Citibank,
Chowringhee Branch, wherein there was substantial sum of money in the
region of Rs.26 lakh.
Succession certificate was granted in favour of Jyotirmoy by the
Alipore Court in a proceeding which Sonali (defendant no. 2) contested.
Jyotirmoy says that the factum of pendency of the application for
succession certificate filed by him was made known to Citibank by writing a
letter. After the succession certificate was granted in his favour, Jyotirmoy
approached the bank for operating the said bank account in the name of
Shyamali. He was told that the money has been handed over to Sonali,
being the nominee of Shyamali.
In the aforesaid factual matrix, Jyotirmoy filed the instant suit
against Citibank and Sonali, claiming a money decree for Rs.25,29,156.85.
The learned Single Judge analysed the evidence on record which
consisted of the depositions of the Jyotirmoy and Sonali. The learned Judge
came to the conclusion that the bank was in collusion with Sonali and
wrongfully handed over the money in Shyamoli's account to Sonali
notwithstanding pendency of Jyotirmoy's application for succession
certificate. The claim form submitted by Sonali was not considered or
scrutinized with due care by the bank. The bank acted completely callously
in the matter.
The learned Judge further held that a nominee named in
connection with a bank account does not necessarily become the owner of
the money that the bank may hand over to him/her. He/she receives the
same as trustee and for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased in
whose name the bank account was held. The learned Judge concluded that
Jyotirmoy having obtained succession certificate from a competent Court, he
was and is entitled to receive that money. Accordingly, the learned Judge
decreed the suit in favour of Jyotirmoy against Sonali in the sum claimed. A
cost of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the bank for having acted in unholy
alliance with Sonali.
The bank and Sonali have preferred separate appeals against the
judgment and decree. Jyotirmoy has filed a cross-objection. His grievance is
limited to the extent that having found that the bank acted in collusion with
Sonali, the decree should have been passed, jointly and severally against the
bank and Sonali.
We have heard Mr. Utpal Bose, learned Senior Advocate
representing Jyotirmoy. He argued that the concerned bank account, which
is the subject matter of this suit, was also one of the subject matters of the
application for succession certificate before the Alipore Court. Sonali, who
was a party to those proceedings and contested the same, never raised any
objection thereto. He submitted that the learned Judge has correctly
analysed the evidence on record and has rightly found that the bank was
hand in glove with Sonali. The bank did not take due caution while
disbursing the amount in favour of Sonali.
Today, there is no further time.
List these matters again on July 25, 2025.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
sg.
