Disposed

U.Amaleshwari v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC18 Jul 2023WP/12839/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ for return of specific gold jewellery pledged as security which was lost to robbery. Court held specific recovery impossible due to lack of identification; ordered bank to pay market value against repayment of dues, fixing a timeline with adjustment for gold price fluctuations.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; bank offered to pay market value of gold against repayment of loan dues within two weeks.

U.Amaleshwari Vs The Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.12839 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 12.07.2023

¶4

Pronounced on : 18.07.2023

¶5

CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

W.P.No.12839 of 2020

¶7

U.Amaleshwari ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank Sholinghur Branch Vellore District - 631 102.

¶10

2.The Regional Manager Indian Overseas Bank No.13/25, Registrar Periyasamy Street Veerasamy Nagar Senkaranpalayam Vellore - 632 001. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return jewels viz., 155 grams consisting of (a) one Haram, (b) one Mango Haram, (c) one Necklace, (d) one Chain, and (e) one Bangle, altogether 5 items in Jewel Loan Account Number 431500324 or to pay the market value of the

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶13

W.P.No.12839 of 2020

¶14

jewels as on date to the petitioner within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Murugan

¶16

For Respondents : Ms.Ananda Gomathy for R1 R2 - No appearance

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner have obtained a gold loan vide Gold Loan Account No.431500324, from the first respondent by pledging 5 items of gold jewellery with the latter, weighing in all 155 grams.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that on 09.05.2017, she went to the bank for discharging her loans and for redeeming the pawned jewels, but the bank refused to accept the money tendered by the petitioner towards redemption. Therefore, on 08.01.2018, the petitioner wrote to the bank for return of the jewellery, but the bank provided an evasive reply. It later came to her knowledge that there was robbery of valuable jewellery from the lockers of the bank, and a case in Cr.No.217 of 2017 has been registered against few officials of the bank, and that in the course of the investigation, the investigating agency has seized some of the lost gold and left the same in the

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶21

W.P.No.12839 of 2020

¶22

Court concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the concerned Magistrate

¶23

Court with an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the return of the jewellery. This was returned by the Court with its endorsement that the jewellery deposited by the police has already been returned to the first bank. It is in this circumstances, the petitioner has come before this Court with this petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to return the very jewellery that she has pawned with the bank.

¶24

The bank has filed its counter. According to it, the investigating agency has only partially recovered the jewellery, but the difficulty is that none of the jewellery recovered has any identification to relate it to the loan account in which it was pawned. In this circumstances, the bank decided to resolve the issue by making payment to its customers at the current market rate of the gold which the customers have pledged. An offer was made to the petitioner herein, but she is keen to obtain only the jewels and not the value of the same.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit that at no point of time between 2017 till the last posting, this offer was made and only now it is made.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶27

W.P.No.12839 of 2020

¶28

The learned counsel for the bank would submit that the identification tag

¶29

in the jewellery pawned with the bank had been removed from the jewellery recovered , and the bank may not be able to identify precisely the jewellery, which the petitioner had pledged with it. She also added that there may be similar jewellery but it can never be said to whom does it belong with any degree of certainty. It is hence the bank has decided to pay the petitioner the current market value payable on the quantity and quality of gold pledged with it, provided the petitioner repays the bank the loan dues.

¶30

It is now evident that the petitioner is demanding the bank to perform that which is impossible for it to perform. Now that the bank has offered her the current money-value of the gold lost, she may receive it if she is desirous, but upon discharging the loan dues to the bank. Since gold value fluctuates, she is required to discharge the loan or adjust the same against the money value of the gold she had pledged, within two weeks from today, and even she goes to the bank on any date subsequent to the expiry of the two weeks herein fixed, the bank is liable to pay only the lower value of the gold during the next two weeks.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶32

W.P.No.12839 of 2020

¶33

The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶34

18.07.2023

¶35

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds

¶36

To:

¶37

1.The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank Sholinghur Branch Vellore District - 631 102.

¶38

2.The Regional Manager Indian Overseas Bank No.13/25, Registrar Periyasamy Street Veerasamy Nagar Senkaranpalayam Vellore - 632 001.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

W.P.No.12839 of 2020

N.SESHASAYEE.J.,

Pre-delivery order in W.P.No.12839 of 2020

¶44

18.07.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

U.Amaleshwari v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Amaleshwari 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

Grandhi Balaji Vs The District Collector

Mrs.G.Jayanthi Vs The District Collector

Crescent Higher Secondary School, Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Anbazhagi Vs Punjab National Bank, Zonal office

M/S.Thangavel Spinning Mills, Vs The Superintending Engineer (Metro)

Ms.Tamil Nadu Fly Ash Brick and Blocks Manufacturers Association, Vs NTPC Tamilnadu Energy Company Ltd.