My brother is in the early stages of cancer. He`s got a locker that`s either equipped with his wife. Both are RNAs and cannot travel to India to use the locker. Can one add one of the names of the brother who lives in India to remove the contents of the safe, to facilitate the identification of safes on the basis of locker keys, the bank can usually be marked on all the keys to the locker, an identification code that could indicate the bank and the branch that provides the locker. Each bank has a custom locker contract that you must accept and sign to get a record in that bank. It contains a compensation clause and is executed in a very instructive manner by a stamp paper (minimum value of the Rs. 100). But I`m faced with a very different situation. I`m a banker. In this case, they are common tenants who wish to deposit the locker. All three signed a locker registry before the handover.
When I asked them to enter the locker room, they refused to do so, saying only one would come in. I asked about it and I told them that if only one, if you come into the locker room, why did you all sign on the locker of the operating records? Now its banking liability to avoid disputes between tenants and between bankers and tenants. So you all have to come in and run the locker together before you throw up. For this, the client filed a bad behavior complaint against me. Please drive me. Bank closing fees – SBI, ICICI, HDFC and Axis, we have a joint account and a safe in IDBI Bank, we would like to hand the locker to the bank. IDBI Bank asked us for physical presence when handing over From the Bank Is it mandatory under the banking law/rules? I stay in the United States and I can`t travel to Mumbai, India, my wife stays in Mumbai, India. I`m going to sign the necessary documents – send to the bank, will it work? Please share your views/comments/advice with me. No other person as a tenant or tenant can notify a bank of the requirement for the contents of the locker, with the exception of a competent court. In this case, the bank should be aware of such a decree. The judgment was favourable to the complainants because the bank had not followed its own locker operations policies at all.