Allowed

Muniyasamy.S v. the Chairman

Madras HC8 Mar 2021WP(MD)/4722/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding illegal retention of pledged jewels by a bank after loan discharge due to investigation into spurious jewels. Court directed bank to return genuine jewels onPetitioner furnishing fixed deposit for spurious jewels.

What did the court decide?

Directed third respondent to return genuine jewels on condition petitioner furnishes fixed deposit receipts for Rs.72,700/- as security for spurious jewels allowing general lien.

Muniyasamy.S Vs the Chairman — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4722 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.03.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P (MD) No.4722 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD) No.3831 of 2021

S.Muniyasamy

... Petitioner

1.The Chairman, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶8

2.The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, 65/A, 1^st and 3^rd Floor, Shanmugham Complex, East Car Street, Tuticorin.

¶9

3.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kadaladi Branch, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

4.Shamugapandi, Ex-Appraiser, Indian Overseas Bank, Kadaladi Branch, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to receive the actual one Loan jewel amount and to return the pledged by the petitioner in agriculture Jewel Loan Account No.462004624 for Rs.65,000/- dated 24.04.2019 in the 3^rd respondent on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guruchev For R1 to R-3 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Standing counsel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to receive the actual one jewel amount and to return the jewels pledged by the petitioner with the 3^rd respondent Bank in Agricultural Jewel Loan Accounts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.4722 of 2021

¶18

2.Heard Mr.K.Guruchev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1to3.

¶19

3.It is the case of the petitioner that due to investigation by the District Crime Branch, Ramnad, in respect of some of the jewels pledged by the petitioner, which were found to be spurious, the respondents are not returning the jewels pledged by the petitioner, despite he discharged the jewel loans. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed.

¶20

4.Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that, only some of the jewels are spurious and the Respondent/Bank is willing to return the genuine jewels back to the petitioner on condition that sufficient security is granted to the respondent/Bank in respect of the spurious jewels, which are retained by them.

¶21

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner is also agreeable to the said submissions made by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶22

6.The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 on instructions, would inform this Court that the following amounts are outstanding in respect of all the Jewel Loan Accounts.

¶23

	Account Number	Loan Amount	Present Outstanding amount
Spurious	462004458	Rs.58,000/-	Rs.72,700/-
Original	462004624	Rs.65,000/-	Rs.73,100/-

¶24

7.As seen from the above tabular column, the amount outstanding towards spurious jewels is Rs.72,700/-.

¶25

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish security for the amount outstanding in respect of the spurious jewels which the respondents will be retaining till the completion of the investigation by the District Crime Branch, Ramnad. However, he would further submit that in a previous case, the respective petitioners produced a copy of the original pattas for their respective properties owned by them towards security for the spurious jewels.

¶26

9.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that it is not sufficient if the copy of the computer patta is given to them as it will not provide adequate security and upon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instructions, he would submit that the petitioner will have to

¶27

2/4

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.4722 of 2021

¶29

provide a fixed deposit in his name for the amount outstanding in respect of the spurious jewels and the respondent Bank must be given the power to exercise their general lien over the fixed deposit receipts.

¶30

10.This Court finds force in the said submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶31

11.For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs that the third respondent Bank to return the genuine jewels which were pledged for availing jewel loans by the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall furnish fixed deposit receipts as security for the spurious jewels in his name for the amount of Rs.72,700/- and authorising the respondent Bank to exercise general lien over the same.

¶32

12.However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is at liberty to satisfy the second respondent for substitution of security in the form of immovable property in place of fixed deposits for the spurious jewels, the second respondent shall consider the petitioner’s request for substitution and the second respondent shall exercise their discretion to accept the immovable property securing in place of security in the form of Fixed Deposit.

¶33

13.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

// True Copy //

¶35

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶36

¶37

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

¶38

¶39

1.The Chairman, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶40

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

¶41

3/4

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.4722 of 2021

¶43

2.The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, 65/A, 1^st and 3^rd Floor, Shanmugham Complex, East Car Street, Tuticorin.

¶44

3.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kadaladi Branch, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶45

+1 CC to M/s.N.DILIP KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-10009[F] dated 10/03/2021 )

¶46

Order made in W.P (MD) No.4722 of 2021 08.03.2021

¶47

RK (24.04.2021) 4P 5C

¶48

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

¶49

4/4

Muniyasamy.S v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyasamy.S v. the Chairman

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

Jeyabalan.S Vs the Prl.Secretary and Commissioner

Lakshmi.S Vs the District Collector

V.Karuppu Vs T.Anbalagan

S.Seeralan Vs Jothi Nirmala Periyasamy

Kamaiye Vs the Dist Collector

Chokkalingam.M Vs the Inspector General of Registration