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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more