Skip to main content

Banks Can Retain Pledged Gold Till All Dues are Cleared: HC

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that gold pledged for loan could be retained  by a bank even if the loan is repaid, when the customer has another loan is pending with the same bank. However, the court made it clear that banker’s lien will not apply to gold entrusted to the bank for safe custody in a locker.

Justice V Chithambaresh passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by Nakulan, of Kollam, seeking a directive to Canara Bank to release the gold ornaments pledged on the petitioner clearing only the gold loan. He said that he had taken a personal loan of `25,000 in January 2012. No security of any sort was obtained at the time of transaction.

He also availed a gold loan of Rs. 85,000 in May 2012 by pledging 46.7 grams of gold. The petitioner said that he was willing to clear the gold loan in its entirety and so, the bank is bound to release the gold ornaments without retaining them as security for the personal loan. However, the bank submitted that the gold ornaments cannot be released without the petitioner discharging the entire liability. The bank relied on section 171 of the Indian Contract Act to exercise its right of lien and retain as security the gold ornaments pledged for the amount due from the petitioner.

The court held that a bank has a general lien over all forms of security, including gold ornaments, deposited by or on behalf of the borrower in the ordinary course of banking business for the balance due from him. The bank has a further right to sell the securities, like the gold ornaments, and utilise the proceeds in discharge of the liability due from the borrower in respect of other loans.

The court further permitted the petitioner to repay the amount due towards the personal loan in six equal monthly instalments, in which event the sale of the gold shall be deferred.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/Banks-Can-Retain-Pledged-Gold-Till-All-Dues-are-Cleared-HC/2014/01/09/article1990749.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more