Udaipur Court Fines Bank of Baroda Rs 32,000 for Withholding FD Payment Despite Registered Will
A Udaipur court has fined Bank of Baroda Rs 32,000 for withholding fixed deposit payments for five years despite a registered will, citing negligence and deficiency in service.
Udaipur, October 24 (Udaipur Kiran) : The Permanent Lok Adalat in Udaipur has imposed a penalty of Rs 32,000 on Bank of Baroda for withholding fixed deposit (FD) payments for five years, despite the existence of a registered will in favour of the claimant.
The court found the bank guilty of negligence and deficiency in service after it demanded a ‘probate of will’, a legal certification not required in Rajasthan, before releasing the funds. The bench, comprising chairperson Mahendra Singh Sisodia and members Pramod Kumar Dani and Dr Surbhi Menaria, delivered the judgement.
The court ordered Bank of Baroda to return the full amount from all four FD accounts to the claimant, Sanjay Paliwal, with interest. In addition, the bank must pay Rs 21,000 for mental harassment and Rs 11,000 for litigation expenses, totalling Rs 32,000.
According to the court’s order, if the bank fails to make the payment within one month, it must also pay 9 percent annual interest on the entire amount from 21 October 2021 until the date of actual payment.
The case concerns Sanjay Paliwal, a resident of Central Area, Udaipur. His mother, Manohar Devi, had four fixed deposit accounts at Bank of Baroda’s Krishi Mandi Market Yard branch. On 1 December 2008, Manohar Devi executed a registered will in favour of her son, Sanjay, regarding these deposits.
Manohar Devi passed away on 1 April 2021. Following her death, Sanjay applied to the bank to transfer the FD amounts to his account as per the will. Instead of processing the request, the bank began demanding additional legal documentation.
On 14 October 2021, the bank sent a letter to Sanjay, asking him to submit a probate of will. In response, Sanjay’s lawyers, Shriram Shakdwipi and Bherulal Gayari, wrote to the bank on 21 October 2021, citing a 1997 Rajasthan High Court judgement (Sultan Singh vs Brijraj Singh) which clarified that probate is not mandatory for wills in Rajasthan.
Despite this, the bank did not release the FD amounts. Sanjay wrote again on 23 October 2024, reiterating his demand for payment, but the bank did not comply.
After nearly five years of unsuccessful attempts, Sanjay filed a case on 15 April 2026 under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act in the Permanent Lok Adalat.
During the hearing, the court sought to mediate between the parties, but the bank refused any possibility of reconciliation. Bank’s lawyer, Manoj Kumar Panwar, and officer, Bharat Kumar Jha, submitted affidavits arguing that Sanjay had not completed the necessary documentation and procedures, which led to the delay in payment.
However, the court found that the bank had failed to specify which documents were required from the customer, nor had it communicated these requirements in writing. The court also noted that after Manohar Devi’s death, no other claimant or objection was raised to the will or the FD amounts.
The court concluded that the bank had shown indifference in fulfilling its duties and had willfully withheld payment, depriving Sanjay of access to his own money for five years.
Bhupendra Singh Chundawat is a seasoned technology journalist with over 22 years of experience in the media industry. He specializes in covering the global technology landscape, with a deep focus on manufacturing trends and the geopolitical impact on tech companies. Currently serving as the Editor at Udaipur Kiran, his insights are shaped by decades of hands-on reporting and editorial leadership in the fast-evolving world of technology.
