IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10184 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. MUHAMMED SHAH, S/O. KOYAKUTTY, KARAYILTHODY HOUSE, PO OZHUKOOR VIA, MANGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 642. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MORAYUR BRANCH, MORAYUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 642. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MORAYUR BRANCH, MORAYUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 642. ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10184 of 2011 APPENDIX EXT.P1- COPIES OF THE GOLD LOAN TICKETS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE BANK ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF PLEDGE LETTER DATED 12.1.2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF PLEDGE LETTER DATED 12.1.2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPY OF PLEDGE LETTER DATED 22.1.2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ............................................ W.P.(C).10184/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed of an agricultural loan from the respondent Bank. He also pledged certain gold ornaments and availed a loan. After clearing the gold loan, petitioner asked for return of the ornaments. Bank refused his request stating that the ornaments can be released only after the agricultural loan is cleared. It was there upon this writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the Bank to release the gold ornaments pledged by the petitioner. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Bank in which it has been stated thus:- “It is submitted that in the gold loan pledge letter executed by the petitioner it is clearly stipulated that the bank can exercise a general lien against the other liabilities of the party and that the bank can retain the gold ornaments if other liabilities are not cleared. There are conditions known to the petitioner at the time of availing of the loan facility and he is not entitled to turn round and contend other wise.” W.P.(C).10184/11 2 3. In order to substantiate this contention, along with the verified petition dated 13.7.2011, Annexures I to III pledge letters executed by the petitioner also have been produced. These pledge letters are all signed by the petitioner and in those similarly worded pledge letter, it has been stated thus:- “The bank is entitled to hold the pledged ornaments as security for the above loan with interest at the current ruling rate of 11.00% p.a. Simple interest/compounded quarterly/half yearly from the date of pledge or at such other rates as the bank may stipulate from time to time and other charges thereon as well as any other liability/liabilities on any account payable by me to the Bank at any office of the Bank, whether solely or jointly with others and whether as principal debtor/surety. Any revision made in the interest rate/other charge will be binding on me. The Bank is at liberty to auction the gold ornaments, if the debt is not discharged when demanded to recover the dues. I also undertake to clear deficit with interest arising due to shortfall in value of security and/or auction proceeds. I hereby authorize the Bank to take any legal steps against W.P.(C).10184/11 3 me, including Revenue Recovery action to recover such deficit. I have read the rules and regulations of the Bank and I undertake to abide by the same even if modified from time to time.” 4. Thus, it is obvious that the petitioner has agreed that the Bank is free to retain the ornaments until the entire liability is cleared by him. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that undertaking as contained in Annexures I to III, are vitiated for various reasons, such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner has a case that the undertaking obtained from him is vitiated for any reason, it is upto him to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs