Smti. Sneha Jhanwar vs. The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the original proprietor of M/S Super Drillers, a proprietorship firm engaged in drilling services. The proprietor passed away on May 8, 2021, leaving behind his wife, son, daughter, and the petitioner. Prior to his death, he executed a Will devising his property, including M/S Super Drillers, to his wife, son, daughter, and the petitioner. The petitioner, having been devised ownership of the firm, updated statutory documents like the GST Registration Certificate and Trade Licence in her name. She then requested Respondent No. 3 to release the undisputed final bill and security money amounting to Rs. 2,41,08,215.44/- for completed work. Respondent No. 3 insisted on the submission of a Succession Certificate for the payment, which the petitioner contends is unreasonable given the undisputed nature of the bill and her entitlement based on the Will.

Held

The Court held that since the amounts payable to M/S Super Drillers were undisputed and the works had been undertaken and completed, the respondents should release the amounts. The Court found that the Super Drillers firm had its own account, and the amounts were due to be released in its name and title under which the works were undertaken and completed. The Court reasoned that insisting on a Succession Certificate for undisputed amounts payable to a firm, especially when the petitioner has established her entitlement through a Will and updated statutory registrations, was an unreasonable procedural hurdle. The Court directed the respondents to release the payable amounts to M/S Super Drillers as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the receipt of the order. The issue of interest on delayed payment was not expressly decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent No. 3 can insist on the production of a Succession Certificate for releasing undisputed final bills and security money to the petitioner, who is the legal heir and subsequent proprietor of M/S Super Drillers as per a Will, when the work has been completed and the amount is undisputed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and causing undue delay? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of inheritance, wills, and administrative procedure). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that she is the rightful owner of M/S Super Drillers based on the Will executed by her deceased father-in-law. She contended that the amounts due are undisputed, and the demand for a Succession Certificate is arbitrary and unreasonable, causing undue delay in payment. She relied on the fact that the work was completed as per the agreement and that she had updated the firm's statutory registrations in her name. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their action of demanding a Succession Certificate indicates their stance that such a document is necessary for releasing payments to legal heirs.