Madras High Court
P.M.Ganesan vs The Branch Manager on 4 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1437 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.1437 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11565 of 2022
P.M.Ganesan ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
The Branch Manager,,
Pandiyan Grama Bank,
Thiruppuvanam Branch,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondent / Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the
writ appeal and set aside the order dated 01-11-2022 in
W.P.(MD).No.1598 of 2016 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Palanisamy
For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar,
Standing Counsel.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:56 am )
W.A.(MD)No.1437 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The appellant had three transactions with the respondent bank.
Two were agricultural loan accounts while the third one was jewel loan
account. Admittedly, the appellant was a defaulter in respect of the
agricultural loan accounts. He wanted to redeem the jewels alone. The
bank informed the appellant that he has to clear all the loans. While the
appellant was welcome to clear the jewel loan account, the pledged items
will not be returned. In other words, the bank stated that they would
have lien over the jewels pledged by the appellant. Subsequently, the
jewels were brought to auction. Challenging the same, the appellant filed
W.P.(MD)No.1598 of 2016. The writ petition was dismissed on
01.11.2022 in the following terms:-
“8.Even as per the admitted case of the writ petitioner,
the petitioner has borrowed two agricultural loans and the loan
in dispute namely the jewel loan. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the Bank is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:56 am )
have a general lien over the jewels that were pledged by the writ
petitioner not only for the payment of the jewel loan but also for
the other loans borrowed from the same Bank. Hence, in view of
the said legal submission, this Court is of the opinion that even if
the jewel loan is repaid by the writ petitioner, the respondent
Bank would be entitled to retain the jewels as a security unless
and until the other two loans are settled by the writ petitioner.
The notice impugned in the writ petition just informed the
petitioner that he has to pay the principal and interest within a
period of 7 days in order to redeem the jewel. This Court does
not find any illegality or infirmity in the said notice issued by the
respondent Bank. Since the petitioner has not paid the jewel
loan, the respondent Bank is legally entitled to issue such a
notice.
9.In view of the above said legal position and non
payment of jewel loan, the order impugned in the writ petition is
perfectly legal and no grounds have been made out by the writ
petitioner for interference by this Court under Article 226 of
Constitution of India.”
Questioning the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing
counsel for the bank submitted that the auction was held on 29.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:56 am )
and that the jewels pleaded by the appellant have since been sold in
auction. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ
appeal.
4.We also have to observe that the reasons assigned by the learned
Single Judge are sound in law. Interference is not warranted. The writ
appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,)
04.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:56 am )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ias
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:56 am )
