Disposed

U.Kaladevi, W/o.a.Umapathi, v. The Managing Director

Madras HC4 Apr 2022WP/21800/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the bank to return 69 grams of admitted jewels after the petitioner paid the principal and interest, permitting her to litigate the dispute regarding the remaining jewels in a civil suit separately.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent bank to return 69 grams of jewels upon receipt of principal and interest calculated up to the date of deposit in the civil court.

U.Kaladevi, W/o.a.Umapathi, Vs The Managing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.NO.21800 OF 2018 AND W.M.P.NOS.25567 & 25568 OF 2018

¶6

U.Kaladevi

¶7

W/o.A.Umapathi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, State Head Quarters Branch, Chennai.

¶10

The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vellore Region, Vellore.

¶11

The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sholinghur Branch, Sholinghur - 631 102. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the concerned records relating to sale notice dated 06.08.2018 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar

¶15

or Respondents : Mrs.D.Kamachi For R1 to R3

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the 3^rd respondent bank and directing the petitioner to pay jewel loan amount and redeem the jewels.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that, she has pledged totally 174 grams of jewels with the 3^rd respondent bank, however, she came to know that, due to some malpractice committed by the officials of 3^rd respondent bank, but the 3^rd respondent stated that only 69 grams of jewels is available with the bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.97 of 2018, on the file of Sub-Judge, Arakkonam for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to return 174 grams of jewels, which was listed in the schedule, after receiving principal amount along with interest and the suit is still pending. In the above suit, the petitioner has voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs.1,09,891/- towards principal and interest of the jewels. Now, the 3^rd respondent is taking steps to conduct auction for non-payment of loan amount. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶20

Mrs.D.Kamachi, learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that, the petitioner has only pledged 69 grams of jewels with the 3^rd respondent bank, however, by committing fraud by the appraiser and other officials, and they have wrongly noted that 174 grams of jewels have been pledged with the 3^rd respondent bank. The 3^rd respondent has also given a police complaint against appraiser and a criminal case has been lodged. However, the respondent is ready to return 69 grams of jewels and so far as remaining jewels, they will abide by the decision of civil court. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner has no objection for the same and she is ready and willing to redeem the jewels on payment of principal and interest due. Hence, the petitioner may be permitted to agitate the suit regarding the remaining grams of jewels.

¶21

Heard and considering rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records carefully.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances, as the dispute regarding the quantum of jewels is pending before the civil court, now the 3^rd respondent ready and willing to return 69 grams of jewels, which is admitted by the Bank, this Court is inclined to direct the 3^rd respondent to return 69 grams of jewels and the petitioner is directed to get back the same without prejudice to her contentions in the suit. As the amount has already been deposited before the civil court, the

¶23

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

¶24

petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount from the civil court and pay the principal and interest for 69 grams of jewels. Further, the 3^rd respondent bank is directed to calculate the interest till the date of deposit of amount in the court, not beyond that, and collect principal as well as interest for the jewels and to return the jewels without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner in the suit. So far as the claim in the suit is concerned, the petitioner is permitted to proceed with the suit independently notwithstanding the return of jewel pursuant to this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

rpp

¶30

¶31

The Sub Court, Arakkonam.

¶32

The Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, State Head Quarters Branch, Chennai.

¶33

The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vellore Region, Vellore.

¶34

The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sholinghur Branch, Sholinghur - 631 102.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.M.Gnanasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.22835 +2cc to M/s.D.Kamachi, Advocate, Sr.No.22820(03/06/2022)

¶36

W.P.NO.21800 OF 2018

¶37

SKM(CO) PBS/24/05/2022

¶38

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

U.Kaladevi, W/o.a.Umapathi, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Kaladevi, W/o.a.Umapathi, v. The Managing Director

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

Muniyappa Vs C.Senthil Kumar

Cholayil Private Limited Vs The Chairman/ Managing

L.Ganesan Vs The Commissioner

Ttl Officers Union(Reg.No.523/ Vs The Managing Director

M/s.Olympia Tech Park Vs The Inspector of General of

Mrs.T.K.Sreelatha, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu