[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ranganathan vs Versus Dhanalakshmi Bank on 14 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:2775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
RANGANATHAN V S
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O SREENIVASAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MELKER FINANCE & LEASING
PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT VALATH HOUSE,
KOORKANCHERRY P.O, THRISSUR NOW UNDER IMPRISONMENT IN
DISTRICT JAIL, VIYOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680007
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
SHRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
SMT.SWATHY A.P.
SMT.THARA ELIZABETH THOMAS
SHRI.MIDHUN A.
SMT.FOUSIYA R
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DHANALAKSHMI BANK
CORPORATE OFFICE, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 680002
2 CHIEF MANAGER, DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD
THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, DHANALAKSHMY BUILDING,
NAICKANAL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:2775
3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, DHANLAXMI BANK LTD
THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, DHANLAKSHMI BUILDING, NAICKANAL,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN
SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR
SMT.SHIFNA MUHAMMED SHUKKUR
SMT.KRISHNA SURESH
SMT.MEKHA MANOJ
SHRI.ANIRUDH INDUKALADHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:2775
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P5
to P8 notices issued by the respondent Bank proposing to sell
gold ornaments which were pledged by the petitioner, his wife,
and his daughter.
2. The respondent Bank has filed a statement opposing the
prayers in the Writ Petition.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Thomas
Abraham, and the learned counsel for the respondent - Bank,
Sri. C.K. Karunakaran.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the period for which the gold was pledged has not expired, and
before that, the bank has no right to sell the gold ornaments
pledged with the bank. The liability under the gold loan is
around Rs.1 Crore, whereas the gold pledged is having a value
of more than Rs.3 Crores. The petitioner and his wife are in jail.
The petitioner is the managing director of an NBFC by the
name M/s. Melker Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. When the net
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
2026:KER:2775
worth of the said NBFC is considered, it is more than Rs.1,000
Crores, and the petitioner can easily settle the gold loans and
other loans availed by the petitioner, his wife, and the company,
if a breathing time is given. The learned counsel invited my
attention to Ext.P4 Agreement to convince the resources for
money. Since the petitioner has been remaining in jail, the
petitioner is not in a position to settle all the loans with the
respondent bank immediately. It is in the interest of justice to
give a reasonable time to the petitioner to settle all the loans
availed by the petitioner, his wife, his daughter, and the
company from the respondent Bank.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent -
bank at the outset objected to the maintainability of the Writ
Petition stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable
against the respondent - bank, which is a private bank. The
learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Shobha S. v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. [2025 (2) KHC
229] and the decision of this Court in the Authorized Officer
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
2026:KER:2775
v. Sheela Francis Parakkal [2025 KHC OnLine 2356] in
support of his contentions. That apart, the learned counsel
invited my attention to paragraph Nos.7 & 8 of the Statement
in which the two clauses of the Gold Loan Agreement are
extracted, which would authorize the bank to recall the gold
loan at any time before the expiry of 12 months or before the
expiry of the period for which the loan is allowed, when the
interest of the bank is in jeopardy, and the decision of the bank
in this regard shall be final and binding on the borrower, and
that the gold can be taken as security for all the debts from the
borrower. The learned counsel further contended that even
though the other loans are taken by the company, the petitioner
and his wife are the guarantors to the said loans, and their
liability is coextensive with that of the principal borrower
company.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. When the respondent bank has raised a preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition, this Court
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
2026:KER:2775
has to consider the same in the light of the decisions cited by
the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents
being a private bank, this Writ Petition is not maintainable
against the respondent Bank. There is no element of public
duty involved in the matter. The dispute arises from contractual
obligations between the parties, which could not be
adjudicated in a Writ Petition in light of the aforesaid decisions
cited by the learned counsel for the respondent bank. That
apart, on merits also, prima facie, it appears that the bank has
a right to recall the loan even before the expiry of the period of
the gold loan and the bank will be at liberty to treat the gold as
security for other loans availed by the petitioner either as the
borrower or as a guarantor. If the petitioner is having any
grievance that his contractual rights are violated, it is for the
petitioner to work out his remedies elsewhere and not in a Writ
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, even
when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered with the
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
2026:KER:2775
judgment of the High Court on the ground of maintainability in
Shobha's case (supra), the reliefs granted by the High Court
to enable the borrower to settle the loan were not interfered
with in the decision. Here, we are only at the preliminary stage
of considering the maintainability of the Writ Petition. No relief
is granted by this Court and no interim order was passed in
favour of the petitioner. I do not find any ground or reason to
entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is
dismissed as not maintainable. However, all the contentions of
the petitioner are left open and the petitioner is free to agitate
all his contentions before the appropriate forums, including a
Civil Court and the Banking Ombudsman. The petitioner is free
to approach the bank and persuade the bank, citing the various
sources stated in the Writ Petition for raising money for settling
the loans without delay.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/
WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
2026:KER:2775
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 863 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
PURSUANT TO THE SAID CHANGE OF NAME DATED
16/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES,
GOA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 23/12/2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
PURSUANT TO THE CHANGE OF NAME DATED 17/04/2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26/06/2025
BETWEEN PARTIES (I) M/S. MAXTOWN EDUCATION &
HEALTH CARE SERVICES PVT. LTD., (II) M/S. MELKER
FINANCE AND LEASING PVT. LTD. AND (III) M/S
CENTREAL CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/12/2025 SENT
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 12/12/2025
ISSUED IN THE CASE OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS PLEDGED
BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE SMT.VASANTHY RANGANATHAN
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/12/2025 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER REITERATING THE
CONTENTIONS IN EXHIBIT P5
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24/12/2025
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/1/25
