IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 24760 of 2007(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SILVJA GIRADONI, A-7091, BREITENBRUNN, KRAUTGARTENWEG-1, AUSTRIA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY GEORGE SAM S/O LATE T.V.SAMUEL, AGED 63, 14/1623, THALATHAYIL HOUSE, K.K.VISWANATHAN ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CANARA BANK, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, BANGLORE- 560 002. BY ADV. SRI.V.M. KURIAN SRI. K.T. THOMAS SRI. MATHEW B. KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 24760 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 20, 2008 JUDGMENT Late Sri Pradeep Kumar Johnson had a savings bank account in the respondent bank. On his death, his will was probated in an Austrian Court as his wife was a born citizen of that country. These are discernible from Exts.P1 and P2. It is also seen that certain properties belonging to the deceased have been settled in favour of a relation of theirs by Ext.P3. Deceased Pradeep Kumar's wife executed Ext.P4 power of attorney authorising Sri George Sam, who has filed this writ petition on her behalf, purportedly authorising him to withdraw the amounts available in the S.B.Account maintained by the deceased in the respondent bank. When requests were made for releasing the amounts by Ext.P4, the bank rejected the claim of the power of attorney holder pointing out some ambiguity on his authority under Ext.P4 and asking him to produce a specific court order. The communication issued by the bank is Ext.P7 in this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition a fresh power of attorney has been executed as Ext.P10. In WP(C) 24760 of 2007 Page numbers Ext.P10 by clause 2 the power of attorney holder has been specifically authorised to withdraw the amount in deposit in S.B.A/c. No.9660 of the respondent bank. In view of clause 2 of Ext.P10 power of attorney now produced, the objection raised by the bank in Ext.P7 no longer survives. The bank has no dispute about the genuineness or acceptability of Ext.P10 power of attorney, but has not released the amount so far. From what transpired during the hearing of this case, I think the attitude of the bank in asking for a court order is to be on the safer side and this attitude cannot be appreciated. 2. In view of this I direct that the bank shall honour the power of attorney and permit the power of attorney holder to withdraw the amount as authorised therein. If the bank feels that any safeguard is necessary, the bank will be free to demand the same from the power of attorney holder. Needless to say that it will be the responsibility of the power of attorney holder to produce original of Ext.P10 and satisfy the bank about its genuineness. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE