SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1764

A. S. CHANDURKAR, URMILA S. JOSHI-PHALKE
Sunil s/o Ratnakar Gutte – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India, through its Branch Manager – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri M.V. Acharya, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Urmila S. Joshi-Phalke, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By invoking the jurisdiction of writ, the question raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is whether the respondent-Bank has right to withhold the documents of security in view of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short) under the right of general lien especially when petitioner has fully repaid the amount of loan.

4. Brief facts are as under :

    A] The petitioner was in need of financial assistance. Accordingly, he approached to the respondent-Bank. He applied for loan of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty one lacs) before the respondent-Bank by way of loan application dated 13/08/2011.

B] The respondent-Bank sanctioned loan vide its sanction letter dated 06/09/2011 on condition that loan is repayable in 300 monthly installments. The petitioner is also a Director and Personal Guarantor in the Company under the name and style as ‘Sunil Hitech Limited’. As the Company was in debt went in the liquidation. By an order of National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter ref

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        Judicial Analysis

        None. The provided case law "Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India VS Devi Ispat Ltd. - 2010 6 Supreme 46: Conditions requisite for maintainability of writ petition restated." does not indicate any treatment such as overruled, reversed, criticized, or questioned. There is no explicit mention of it being overruled or treated as bad law in the provided data. Therefore, no cases are categorized as bad law at this stage.

        Conditions Requisite for Maintainability of Writ Petition Restated:

        This case appears to be a procedural or foundational ruling that restates the conditions necessary for filing or maintaining a writ petition. The language "restated" suggests it is an authoritative statement of law, likely followed or relied upon in subsequent decisions. However, without explicit treatment indicators such as "overruled" or "criticized," it remains in a neutral category, possibly still good law.

        None. The treatment of the case law is clear from the provided description, and there are no ambiguous or uncertain indications regarding its judicial treatment.

        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top