The High Court dismissed an appeal against the decree of costs. It held the bank retained no authority to withhold the customer's remaining savings account balance despite frozen status. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal on costs and awarded no costs.
Appeal suit dismissed. Decree and judgment of the trial court confirmed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.S..No.150 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 21.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.150 of 2025
The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Thirumakottai Road, Asesham, Mannargudi Taluk and District Munsifi, Thiruvarur District.
... Appellant
Versus
Ravichandran
... Respondent
PRAYER : This Appeal Suit has been filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur in O.S.No.10 of 2019 dated 12.12.2023 in respect of the clumn 6 namely that the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.90,914/- being the cost of the suit to the plaintiff and allow the appeal.
Page 1 / 9
A.S..No.150 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.P.Tamilavel
For Respondent : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali
JUDGMENT
Challenging the decree and judgment, particularly against the costs
awarded by the trial Court, the present appeal suit has been filed.
Court.
Page 2 / 9
A.S..No.150 of 2025
the remaining amount has also not been paid by the bank on the ground that the accounts have been frozen by them. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for the refund of the amount of 23,54,775.47 being the amount deducted from the account of the plaintiff and for the relief of mandatory injunction. However, the trial Court granted declaration holding that the plaintiff is entitled to balance amount of Rs.11,91,880.47. However, declined the relief of mandatory injunction.
A.S..No.150 of 2025
amount from the savings account of the petitioner in exercise of banker lien as per Section 171 of the Contract Act.
filed by the trial Court for consideration in the suit :
mandatory injunction as prayed for?
of jewels as prayed for in the plaint?
documentary, granted declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for the balance amount in his savings account after deducting the jewel loan due amount. However, rejected the claim of mandatory injunction for return of jewels. The suit has been decreed with costs. As against the dismissal of the suit, in respect of the prayer for mandatory injunction, no appeal, whatsoever, has
Page 4 / 9
A.S..No.150 of 2025
been filed by the plaintiff. Similarly, the plaintiff has also not filed any appeal for not returning the entire amount in his savings account. The bank has also confined their appeal only against costs alone.
Whether the freezing of the account of the plaintiff is
Page 5 / 9
A.S..No.150 of 2025
properly done by the bank?
I have perused entire materials. The fact that the plaintiff had savings account in the appellant bank is not disputed. It is also not disputed that as on 03.08.2012 he had a sum of Rs.23,54,775/- in his account. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff has also availed jewel loan from the appellant bank. Further, the fact that a criminal case is pending against the plaintiff and others is also not disputed. It has been clearly established on record that 73 persons have availed jewel loan by pledging spurious jewels which had triggered in filing of the complaint under Ex.B.1. The plaintiff is also arrayed as one of the accused, which has been established on record. The fact remains that the jewel loan availed by the plaintiff has been adjusted from his savings account on 04.01.2018 itself. But the bank has not released the remaining amount to the plaintiff.
A.S..No.150 of 2025
them to freeze the account of the plaintiff and other accused persons. The fact remains that no written authorization or any Order from the Court has been passed with regard to freezing the account. Therefore, the contention of the bank is that only on oral instructions or information from the police, they have not paid the remaining amount cannot be countenanced. The bank ought to have obtained written Orders from the police authorities to freeze the account. The plaintiff has come to the Court in the year 2023 for the remaining amount. Having adjusted entire amount of gold loan from the plaintiff, the bank has no authority, whatsoever, to retain the remaining amount. Even if the alleged offence is proved against the plaintiff, it will be only with reference to his loan amount alone, and it cannot be extended beyond that. In such view of the matter, having denied the benefit to the customer for more than five years and forcing him to go to the Court to get the declaratory relief by paying Court fees, now it cannot be said that the direction to the bank to pay the costs is unreasonable. The point is answered accordingly.
A.S..No.150 of 2025
confirmed. No costs.
21.03.2025
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
To,
Page 8 / 9
A.S..No.150 of 2025
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
A.S.No.150 of 2025
21.03.2025
Page 9 / 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the freezing of the plaintiff's account by the bank on oral police instructions rather than a written court order was proper?
Whether the bank is liable to pay costs in an appeal filed solely against the decree of costs when the remaining account balance remained withheld?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Thirumakottai Road, Asesham, Mannargudi Taluk and District Munsifi, Thiruvarur District
Ravichandran
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
