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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 100

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. CHAKRAVARTTI, S. C. LAHIRI
HULAS KUNWAR - Appellant
Versus
ALLAHABAD BANK LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. O.  45  Of  1956
Decided On : APRIL 2, 1958

A reasonable notice of the sale of pledged goods is required to be given by the pawnee to the pawner before the sale is held.

Headnote:

INTEREST - Rate of interest - Implied agreement - Notice of sale of pledged shares - Reasonable notice - Sale of shares without notice - Validity of sale.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a constituent of the defendant Bank, pledged certain shares with the Bank as security for advances made to him on his overdraft account. The deed of hypothecation provided for a margin of 40 per cent in respect of ordinary shares and 25 per cent in respect of preference shares. The limit of advances to be made to the plaintiff was originally fixed at Rs. 50,000/- but it was increased from time to time and ultimately it stood at Rs. 3,50,000/- in 1947. From August, 1948, the Bank wrote a number of letters to the plaintiff pointing out that the securities held in deposit by the Bank against the advances made to the plaintiff fell below the stipulated margin of 40 per cent and requesting the plaintiff to restore the margin either by sending sufficient funds, or by furnishing further securities. On the plaintiff's failure to restore the margin the Bank sold some of the shares in 1949 and was about to sell some more shares when the plaintiff instituted a suit for redemption on 12-5-1950, praying for redemption of the shares pledged by him on a proper accounting of all the dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and the Bank.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Bank was entitled to charge interest at the rate of 3 1/2 per cent from 17-10-1946 on the basis of an implied agreement between the parties. The Court also held that the sales of the pledged shares by the Bank were invalid, except for the sales held in 1949 on and after 20/5/1949.

Issues: 1. Whether there was an implied agreement between the parties to pay interest at the rate of 3 1/2 per cent from 17-10-1946? 2. Whether the sales of the pledged shares by the Bank were valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was an implied agreement between the parties to pay interest at the rate of 3 1/2 per cent from 17-10-1946 on the basis of the following circumstances: (a) The Bank had raised its interest rate to 3 1/2 per cent from 17-10-1946. (b) The plaintiff was aware of the increase in interest rate. (c) The plaintiff continued to keep his overdraft account alive and took a further advance of Rs. 10,000/- on 19-3-1948 with full knowledge of the fact that the Bank had raised its interest rate to 3 1/2 per cent. 2. The Court held that the sales of the pledged shares by the Bank were invalid, except for the sales held in 1949 on and after 20/5/1949, on the following grounds: (a) The Bank did not give a reasonable notice of the sale of the shares. (b) The Bank sold some of the shares without giving any notice to the plaintiff. (c) The Bank sold the shares in an indecent haste without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to redeem the shares.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part. The order of Sarkar, J. that the plaintiff is liable to pay interest at the rate of 3 1/2 per cent was affirmed; but his order relating to the validity of the sales was modified in the following manner: (a) all the sales held by the Bank prior to 20/5/1949 are declared invalid; (b) all the sales held in 1949 on and after 20/5/1949 are confirmed; (c) all the sales held in 1950 are declared invalid and (d) the sale held on 20/2/1951 is also declared invalid.

S. C. LAHIRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption and is directed against an order, elated 31-8-1955, passed by Sarkar, J. by which be discharged the exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the report of the Commissioner and Special Referee appointed in the suit to submit a report on certain questions referred to him. The facts which are material for the purposes of this appeal are these : On 9-3-1943 one Chandmull Batia, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, executed a deed of hypothecation in favour of the respondent Bank in respect of certain shares as security for advances to be made by the Bank on the plaintiff's overdraft account. By this deed of hypothecation it was agreed that the Bank was to have a margin of 40 per cent in respect of ordinary shares and 25 per cent in respect of preference shares. The limit of advances to be made to the plaintiff was originally fixed at Rs. 50,000/- but it was increased from time to time and ultimately it stood at Rs. 3,50,000/- in 1947. From August, 1948, the Bank wrote a number of letters to the plaintiff pointing out that the securities held in deposit by the Bank against the advances made to the plaintiff fell below the stipulated margin of 40 per cent and requesting the plaintiff to restore the margin either by sending sufficient funds, or by furnishing further securities. On the plaintiff's failure to restore the margin the Bank sold some of the shares in 1949 and was about to sell some more shares when the plaintiff instituted a suit for redemption on 12-5-1950, praying for redemption of the shares pledged by him on a proper accounting of all the dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and the Bank. In the plaint the principal grievances made by the plaintiff are that (a) the defendant Bank had wrongfully debited the plaintiff's account with interest in excess of the rate fixed by agreement and (b) the sale of the shares by the Bank was in breach of the terms and conditions of the said hypothecation and was contrary to law. On 5-3-1951 it was ordered and decreed with the consent of the parties that the suit be referred to Mr. B. K. Chakravarti, Bar-at-Law, to take accounts and make the following enquiries :" (1) An account of what, if any, is due on this date to the defendant Bank for principal and interest on the overdraft account mentioned in the plaint. . . . . (3) what shares have been sold properly by the defendant bank. . . . . (4) what rate of interest was agreed upon between the parties, whether 3 per cent or 3 1/2 per cent. . . . . Referee is to proceed on the basis of and shall not disturb (1) any settled account or (2) any account examined and accepted as correct by conduct or otherwise (3) any sale proceeds of aforesaid shares forming part of such settled accounts or any account examined and accepted as correct by conduct or otherwise as aforesaid. . . . . "those portions of the consent order which have not been quoted are not material for the purposes of this appeal. Before the Special Referee the parties agreed that the only issues upon which he should submit his report were : (1) "what rate of interest was agreed upon between the parties, whether 3 per cent or 3 1/2 per cent?" and (2) "were the shares mentioned in the list submitted by the plaintiff and described as 'improperly sold', sold properly?" The report of the Special Referee was in favour of the defendant bank on both the points. The plaintiff filed exceptions to the report claiming that the rate of interest should be 3 per cent and that the sale of the shares by the defendant bank should be held to be illegal. Sarkar, J. has overruled the plaintiff's objections and confirmed the report of the Special Referee. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE first point which falls for determination in this appeal is what was the rate of interest agreed upon by the parties? It is common ground that originally the rate of interest was 3 1/2 per cent Ex. 1, letter






























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