Allowed

Mumtaj Begum, W/O.Late v. the Branch Manager

Madras HC20 Nov 2018WP(MD)/15723/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the respondent bank to return pledged jewels to the petitioner after she cleared the loan dues and submitted legal heir documents, provided she executes an indemnity bond to safeguard the bank's future interests.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent bank to return the pledged jewels within two weeks of receiving the executed indemnity bond.

Mumtaj Begum, W/O.Late Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.15723 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.14082 of 2018

Mumtaj Begum

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mimisal Branch, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned communication, dated 11.12.2017 in No.Br/lr on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to handover the jewels in loan Account Nos.Ag39/194 and Ag39/245 in the respondent Bank to the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh For Respondent : Mr.S.Sethuraman

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned communication, dated 11.12.2017 in No.Br/lr on the file of the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to handover the jewels in loan Account Nos.Ag39/194 and Ag39/245 in the respondent Bank to the petitioner.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that she married one Mohamed Jamal and they got three children. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband died on 19.01.2017 due to heart attack. The petitioner and her children along with mother-in-law are residing jointly and they are the surviving legal heirs. The petitioner's husband had savings account with the respondent Bank as Account No.34484541956 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's husband has pledged the jewels of the petitioner in the respondent Bank, which has been given at the time of marriage, and

¶16

¶17

obtained jewels loan in Account No.AG39/194-46.20 grams of gold for Rs.78,000/and Ag39/245-91.40 grams of gold for Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner has cleared the entire loan amount with accrued interest on 19.07.2017 and also produced death certificate of her husband, legal heir certificate and all other required documents for redeeming the jewels.

¶18

While that being the case, on 11.12.2017, an impugned communication was passed by the respondent denying that as per Mohamedan Act, the legal heir of the minor children will be the father's father, in the absence of father. In her case, father's father also not alive. Hence, the respondent Bank requested the petitioner to submit a Court order appointing her as the guardian of her son, for further process of the settlement.

¶19

The petitioner further states that she is the natural guardian of her children, in the absence of her husband and there is no dispute with regard to the same and as on date, there is no counter-claim by any other person. She has also produced Indemnity Bond, Disclaimer Bond to the respondent Branch and the respondent Bank also received full amount with accrued interest from her.

¶20

After receiving the impugned communication, dated 11.12.2017, the petitioner sent a detailed representation to the respondent Bank on 13.03.2018 stating that it is not a property of her husband's ancestors, which is pledged before the Bank and it is her jewels, for which, the stand taken by the respondent Bank would not apply. Since no action has been taken till date by the respondent Bank, the petitioner, left with no other option, has approached this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if the petitioner execute any Indemnity Bond afresh with regard to their right, the respondent Bank will consider the same and return the jewels.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶23

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that once the loan account has been closed and the petitioner has also paid the entire amount, which is due to the Bank, the Bank cannot hold the jewels, which is contrary to the decisions of this Court and the respondent Bank ought to have given back the jewels, when there is no counter-claim raised by any other party and the petitioner has also produced the Legal Heir Certificate. Hence, the respondent Bank is duty bound to return the same to the petitioner. If the respondent Bank is of the opinion that in future, there can be any claim, to safe-guard the interest of the Bank, the petitioner shall execute Indemnity Bond and the respondent Bank is directed to return https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the jewels within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving the Indemnity Bond.

¶24

¶25

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶30

¶31

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mimisal Branch, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶32

1 CC TO Mr.M.Suresh, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 96512.

¶33

1 CC TO Mr.S.Sethuraman , ADVOCATE IN SR No.96187.

¶34

¶35

DS SKN SAR1 10 12 2018 3P 4C

¶36

W.P(MD)No.15723 of 2018

¶37

20.11.2018

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mumtaj Begum, W/O.Late v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaj Begum, W/O.Late v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.S.Mills Limited Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sevugan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rengarajan, Vs the District Collector

R. Pandiyan Vs the Director

T. Vasantha Vs the District Collector

R.Muthu Mari, W/O.Rajakannu Vs the District Collector