POOJA VIJAY RAICHANDANI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner No. 1 claiming the status as the wife, petitioner No. 2 claiming the status as the daughter and petitioner No. 3 claiming the status as the son of Vijay M. Raichandani (who shall be referred to as "the person concerned"), have approached to this Court contending interalia that the person concerned has left the house since so many years and on 05. 07. 2000 when the father of the person concerned had expired, public advertisement was also given in the newspaper viz. "gujarat Samachar". However, he has not returned back and as per the petitioners his whereabouts are also not known. The said fact has also been reported to the police vide entry No. 19 of 2003 dated 25. 06. 2003 that the person concerned Vijay M. Raichandani has left the home and his whereabouts are not known. The aforesaid entry is recorded at Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad city. As per the petitioners the person concerned had the bank account with State Bank of India, Sahijpur-Bogha branch, Krishnanagar Road, Ahmedabad and was having FDR etc. including the locker. It is stated by the petitioners that all details are not available but such details are called for by the petitioners. The petitioners have further prayed to release money which is lying in the bank account for prosecuting the studies of the petitioners No. 2 and 3, and the petitioner No. 1 as such has no independent source of income. The contention of the petitioners is that, as per section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, if the whereabouts of the person concerned is not known for a period of last 7 years, it should be presumed that he is not available and the amount lying in the bank account deserves to be allotted to the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court by preferring the present petition praying that the respondent No. 1 bank be directed to provide information to the petitioners about all bank accounts and the balance of Shri Vijay M. Raichandani person concerned and be further directed to release all the amounts to the petitioners.

(2.) HEARD Ms. Dalal learned counsel for Mr. Soni for the petitioners and Mr. P. G. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 bank and Mr. Vinay Pandya, learned A. G. P. of the State and Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.

(3.) TWO aspects at the first instance are required to be examined. First is about the relationship of the petitioners with the person concerned. The another is for the mode of succession in effect if the whereabouts of the person concerned is not known for a period of 7 years or more.