Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2694
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. JAICHANDREN & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
PL. Muthaiah & Others
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul & Others
W.A. (MD). No. 521 of 2013 & M.P. (MD). No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 22-08-2014
For the Appellants :D. Sadiq Raja, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R2, B. Pugalendhi, Special Govt. Pleader, R4, L. Madhusudhanan, Advocate.
Employees of a pawnbroker re-pledging jewels with third parties do not entitle them to claim redemption of the jewels.
Headnote:
Pawn Brokers Act - Employees of Pawn Broker - Denial of Relief to Redeem Jewels
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, employees of a licensed pawnbroker, had pledged jewels with a third party who absconded. They sought redemption of the jewels through a writ petition after a direction was given to constitute a Committee at the District Level.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants, as employees of the pawnbroker, re-pledged the jewels with a third party who further re-pledged them with another party. The court denied the relief sought by the appellants, stating that they could not seek any direction in their favor.
Issues: Claim for redemption of jewels by employees of a pawnbroker, denial of relief by the court
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the re-pledging of the jewels by the appellants and the subsequent transactions with third and fourth parties did not entitle the appellants to claim redemption of the jewels.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed. No costs were awarded.
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 19.04.2013 passed in W.P(MD)No.4187 of 2013.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal would run thus:
2.1. The appellants were stated to be the employees of Vishalam Bankers, a licensed pawnbroker registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943. They had pledged the jewels with the third respondent, who closed down his business and was absconding, against whom, the criminal case was registered at the instance of the public. The police had also registered several cases against the Non-banking Financial Institutions, which ended in filing of the writ petitions before this Court, wherein this Court gave a direction to constitute a Committee at the District Level to redeem the jewels to the parties concerned. Seeking a similar relief, the appellants had filed the writ petition.
2.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it was stated that the appellants were not the real owners of the jewels, but, they were the employees of Vishalam Bankers, a pawn broker and that the appellants could not be termed as aggrieved parties to claim the benefit of the order of this Court. Whereas the fourth respondent, in his counter affidavit, also opposed the relief sought for by the appellants. A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the appellants, denying the averments in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents.
2.3. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials available on record, the learned Judge of this Court had negatived the claim of the appellants and rejected the writ petition stating that no direction could be issued to the Committee to consider the case of the appellants. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court.
3. Mr. D. Sadiq Raja, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that though the appellants had re-pledged the jewels with the third respondent, it could not be stated that the appellants were not entitled to redeem the same and they had every right to claim redemption of the jewels. He further argued that the learned Judge ought to have considered the claim of the appellants that they sought for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the complaint preferred by the appellants in accordance with law, but, the writ petition came to be rejected stating that no direction could be given to the Committee in that regard. Hence, he prayed for interference with the order of the learned Judge of this Court.
4. Per contra, Mr. L. Madhusudhanan, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent had disbursed the jewels as per the direction of this Court in the common judgment and the appellants having not obeyed the order of this Court, are not entitled to claim any benefit under the same order. Accordingly, he opposed this writ appeal.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the learned Judge of this Court.
6. At the outset itself, we find that the case of the appellants is quite different from that of anyone, as, they, being the employees of Vishalam Bankers, had re-pledged the jewels with the third respondent, who in turn, re-pledged with the fourth respondent. To fortify their claim, they pleaded much in their favour, however, such a claim cannot be considered at any score.
7. As rightly held by the learned Judge of this Court, the appellants could not seek for any direction in their favour as the appellants had re-pledged the jewels with the third respondent and the same was once again re-pledged by the third respondent with the fourth respondent, who had no accounts in respect of such gold jewels re-pledged by the third respondent. Therefore, the learned Judge had categorically denied the relief sought for by the appellants, which, in our opinio
