Dismissed

Nabeesath M. v. the Manager

Kerala HC12 Dec 2019WP(C)/28123/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of gold ornaments pledged for her loans, claiming no liability for her deceased husband's loan. Court held that since she was a guarantor and authorized retention for other liabilities, the bank could retain ornaments until her husband's loan was liquidated. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking directions for release of pledged ornaments was dismissed.

Nabeesath M. Vs the Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.28123 OF 2019(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NABEESATH M., AGED 63 YEARS, W/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, S.S.COTTAGE, CHUNDA, CHERUKULAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PUNALUR BRANCH, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM-691 305.

¶11

R1 BY ADV. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

W.P. (C) No.28123 of 2019

¶15

W.P. (C) No.28123 of 2019

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The petitioner has availed two agricultural loans from the respondent bank on the security of gold ornaments. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that when she approached the bank for liquidating the liability in respect of the loans, the bank has informed her that she is entitled to claim release of the pledged ornaments only if she liquidates the liability of her deceased husband in respect of a loan availed by him. According to the petitioner, she has nothing to do with the loan availed by her deceased husband and that the liability in the said loan account cannot therefore, be a ground for the bank to decline release of the ornaments pledged by her, once the liability in respect of the loans availed by her is cleared. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶18

A counter affidavit has been filed by the bank.

¶19

It is stated by the bank in the counter affidavit that in terms of

¶20

¶21

W.P. (C) No.28123 of 2019

¶22

the documents executed by the petitioner for availing the gold loans, she has authorized the bank to retain the pledged gold ornaments not only towards the security of the loans availed by her, but also towards the security in respect of her other liabilities to the bank. It is also stated by the bank that the petitioner was a guarantor to the loan availed by her deceased husband which has not been liquidated by him and that in the light of the aforesaid term of the agreement executed by her while availing the gold loan, the bank is entitled to retain the pledged gold ornaments.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank.

¶24

Ext s.R(1)(c) to R(1)(i) are the documents executed by the petitioner along with her husband in connection with the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- availed by the husband from the bank. The said documents indicate that the petitioner was the guarantor to the said loan transaction. Further, the stand taken by the bank in the counter affidavit filed in the matter that the petitioner was a guarantor to the

¶25

¶26

W.P. (C) No.28123 of 2019

¶27

loan availed by her deceased husband has not been refuted by the petitioner. If that be so, in the light of Section 171 of the Contract Act, the bank is entitled to withhold the security furnished by the petitioner for the loans availed by her towards the unliquidated liability in respect of the loan availed by her husband of which the petitioner was a surety (See

¶28

Nakulan v. Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Kollam and others [2014(1) KHC 51]. Even otherwise, it is seen that the petitioner has authorized the bank to retain the pledged gold ornaments towards the security in respect of her other liabilities to the bank also in terms of Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) documents executed for availing the loans. The writ petition, in the circumstances is without merits, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

YKB

¶31

¶32

W.P. (C) No.28123 of 2019

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.8.2018 IN WPC NO 25321/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2018 IN WPC NO 25321/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.9.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BY REGISTERED POST

¶39

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOLD LOAN DELIVERY LETTER DATED 1-9-2018 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶41

EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE GOLD LOAN DELIVERY LETTER DATED 15-12-2018 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF PENSION LOAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND ALONG WITH THE PETITIONER AS GUARANTOR.

¶43

EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND TO THE BANK.

¶44

¶45

W.P. (C) No.28123 of 2019

¶46

EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF AUTHORITY DATED 18-7-2014 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.

¶47

EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF AUTHORITY DATED 18-7-2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND.

¶48

EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 17-7-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND TO DEDUCT MONTHLY EMI.

¶49

EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 17-7-2014 ISSUED JOINTLY BY THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND.

¶50

EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17-72014 ISSUED JOINTLY BY THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND.

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

PA TO JUDGE

Nabeesath M. v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabeesath M. v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anila Kumari C.A Vs Branch Manager

Fakrudheen Ali Ahammed U Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

C.N.Jamaludeen, Vs District Registrar General, Registration Department

M/S.Ascens Book and Advertisers Vs the Airport Director

Ramesh K. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Kanhangad

Subramanian, Vs State of Kerala