S.Manthiram vs The General Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 642 Mad

Madras High Court

S.Manthiram vs The General Manager on 9 January, 2024

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

                                                                             W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2016

                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 09.01.2024

                                                     CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                     AND
                                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                             W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2016
                                                       and
                                            C.M.P.(MD).No.5879 of 2016

                     S.Manthiram                                    .. Appellant/Petitioner

                                                        Vs.
                     1.The General Manager,
                       Reserve Bank of India,
                       No.16, Rajaji Salai,
                       Chennai.

                     2.The Branch Manager,
                       State Bank of India,
                       (Bazar Branch),
                       West Car Street,
                       Tuticorin District.                        .. Respondents/Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
                     allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 26.11.2015 made in
                     W.P.(MD).No.19250 of 2014 on the file of this Court.




                     Page 1 of 5




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.A.(MD).No.986 of 2016



                                        For Appellant      : Mr.B.Anandan

                                        For R-1            : No appearance

                                        For R-2            : Mr.V.P.Rajan

                                                          JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

The dispute regarding the number of jewels pledged for raising jewel

loan has been converted into Writ Petition seeking a writ of Mandamus,

directing the first respondent to take action against the second respondent/

Branch Manager, who has received the jewels for advancing loan.

2. The short point involved in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal,

is that the appellant/writ petitioner alleged to have pledged 8 bangles and 1

bracelet, weighing 70.50 Grams to avail loan of Rs.1,25,000/-. A computer

receipt was generated by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Tuticorin Bazar Branch, Tuticorin with the above particulars and issued to

the appellant. Within an hour, they found that only 6 bangles and 1 bracelet

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

weighing 40.5 Grams were pledged and immediately, corrective measures

were taken. However, the appellant herein, without accepting the corrective

measures, reiterated that he had pledged 8 bangles and 1 bracelet, having

total weight of 70.50 Grams, had approached the Bank Ombudsman.

Having lost in his complaint, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition seeking

a writ of Mandamus.

3. The learned Single Judge had considered the submissions and had

recorded that though the writ petitioner claims that he pledged 8 bangles

and 1 bracelet, a contra material produced by the Bank indicates that the

writ petitioner had pledged only 6 bangles and 1 bracelet. The other 2

bangles, which had already been lying in the weighing machine, which

belongs to one Subbulakshmi, was wrongly included in the list of jewels

pledged by the appellant/writ petitioner, S.Manthiram. In view of such

disputed fact, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ

Petition by stating that in view of disputed facts, the parties have to agitate

the cause before the competent civil forum by letting in evidence, and that

Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. Further, a

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

liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to approach the competent Civil

Court to workout his remedy in the manner known to law and eventually,

the Writ Petition was dismissed. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge

is perfectly in order and requires no interference.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

                                                                       (G.J.,J.) (C.K.,J.)
                                                                           09.01.2024
                     NCC      : Yes / No
                     Index    : Yes / No
                     Internet : Yes / No
                     Lm









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


                                   DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
                                                   and
                                        C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

                                                              Lm









                                                    09.01.2024









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