Dismissed

Farhana Banu S v. the Competent Authority

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024MFA/2838/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged a Trial Court order requiring payment of accumulated interest and charges to release pledged gold jewelry. The High Court held that filing an application was insufficient; actual payment of dues from the loan date was mandated per the agreement, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed. The order of the Trial Court dated 06.01.2022 remains unaltered.

Farhana Banu S Vs the Competent Authority — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45809 MFA No. 2838 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2838 OF 2022 (KPIDFA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FARHANA BANU. S W/O. SYED AKBAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT 45/4, 2^ND FLOOR PROMENADE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, SIVAN CHETTY GARDEN BANGALORE-560 042.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR IMA GROUP OF COMPANIES REGIONAL COMMISSIONER (REV) BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

I MONETARY ADVISORY A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDHIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 D/W. V/O. DTD. 19.09.2024)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45809 MFA No. 2838 of 2022

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF KPID ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED IN MISC.NO.722/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 92^ND ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed against the order passed by the Trial Court in Miscellaneous No.722/2019 dated 06.01.2022.

¶23

The very ground urged before this Court is only with regard to payment of interest for the delay in repayment. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant is the bonafide pledger of the gold, who has not been able to release her gold. Therefore, by exercising her right, she has approached the Trial Court seeking relief to release her pledged gold and also expressed that she is ready to pay the amount due. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court vide order dated 06.02.2022 has ordered that the petitioner Competent Authority is permitted to

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45809 MFA No. 2838 of 2022

¶25

release the gold jewellery with proper identification of the gold jewellery on their making payment of the entire outstanding loan amount with other charges, till actual payment is made as per the terms of the loan agreement. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and improper and the same is passed over looking the bonafide conduct of the appellant. Learned counsel also would submit that payment was not made due to Covid-19 issue for a period of two years and the Trial Court ought not to have passed such an order to pay the interest and it requires interference by modifying the order.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that even though the respondents made claim of notional interest and 50% of the appreciation in the gold value, the same is not accepted by the Trial Court. However, it is made clear in paragraph No.12 of the order that in the memo of submission, the respondents have also claimed for the interest for the restricted period i.e., from the date of taking loan till the date of making the application before this Court and they have made the application in the year 2019 itself. But, this claim of the respondents is found to be not acceptable one. The reason

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45809 MFA No. 2838 of 2022

¶28

is also given that they have deposited the amount in the year 2019 itself in accordance with law. It is observed just because they have filed an application in the year 2019, that will not exonerate them from making payment of the charges and as per the terms of the loan agreement from the date of taking loan till making actual payment. The order of the Trial Court is in terms of the loan agreement and question of interfering with the same does not arise.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶30

and learned counsel for the respondents and particularly, the issue is with regard to payment of interest and the same is disputed by the appellant. No doubt, the appellant has filed an application in the year 2019, the Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that mere filing of the application is not enough. If the appellant has deposited the amount along with the application, then she would have a remedy. Hence, question of exonerating her from making payment of the charges does not arise which shall be from the date of taking loan till making actual payment.

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45809 MFA No. 2838 of 2022

¶32

When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court, the very contention that application was filed and the appellant is not liable to pay the interest from the date of taking loan till making actual payment cannot be accepted and the very contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and payment is in terms of the loan agreement. The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration while passing the order and the very contention that order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous cannot be accepted and in paragraph No.12 of the order, reasoning is given in not accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶33

Accordingly, the miscellaneous fist appeal is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶35

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Farhana Banu S v. the Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhana Banu S v. the Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srinivasa Vs Sri Narasimhaiah

Smt Soumya H S Vs Smt Sahana H S

Sri. S. Raja Vs Dr. Ranganath B.G.

Sri M Tulasidas Vs Sri M.K. Gowtham Chand

Sri Manjunath K Vs Kum. Vidyashree K

Sri P M Chowdappa Vs Smt P C Latha