Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Ravichandran on 21 March, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
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.
2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial
Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he had savings account with the
defendant bank in account No.278100050300251 and had a sum of
Rs.23,54,775.47 in his savings account as on 02.01.2018. However, the bank
has taken a sum of Rs.11,62,895/- towards 8 installtments on 04.01.2018
without any permission from the plaintiff. The said deduction has been made
towards the jewel loan obtained by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff,
since the amount has been deducted, the jewels have to be returned. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
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.
4. The case of the defendant is that plaintiff had savings account in their
bank. On scrutiny of the jewel loans availed by about 73 persons from the
defendant bank on 15.12.2017, by checking the genuineness of the gold jewels
pledged by those persons, it turned out that the jewels pledged by them were
spurious. The plaintiff is one among those 73 persons. Therefore, a complaint
has been lodged in Crime No.17 of 2017 dated 16.12.2017 for the offences
under sections 406, 408, 465, 468, 471, 420, 381 and 120B of IPC. Therefore,
it is their contention that at the instruction of the Investigating Officer, the
savings accounts of plaintiff along with the other accused persons have been
frozen. It is their further contention that they have also deducted the loan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
amount from the savings account of the petitioner in exercise of banker lien as
per Section 171 of the Contract Act.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been
filed by the trial Court for consideration in the suit :
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law or not?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
mandatory injunction as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of return
of jewels as prayed for in the plaint?
4. To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?
6. The trial Court after appreciating entire evidence, both oral and
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
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.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly would submit
that the account has been frozen only at the instruction of the police, since the
First Information Report was already pending as per Ex.B.1 series. Therefore,
the bank cannot be fastened with the liability to pay costs.
8. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that remaining amount ought to have been paid by the bank. As the
amount has not been paid, he was forced to come to the Court. Therefore, he
is entitled for costs.
9. In the light of the above submissions, now the point that arises for
consideration is :
Whether the freezing of the account of the plaintiff is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
properly done by the bank?
10. Point :
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.
11. The only contention of the appellant is that after adjusting the gold
loan, the remaining amount has not been paid since the police has informed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
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.
12. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed and the decree and
judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.10 of 2019 dated 12.12.2023 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
confirmed. No costs.
21.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
To,
1. The Principal District Judge,
Thiruvarur.
2. V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 11:46:05 am )
