Nakulan VS Canara Bank

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

V.CHITAMBARESH
Nakulan – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.R. Satish Panicker, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. V.B. Hari Narayanan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

V. Chitambaresh, J.—Can the Bank retain the gold ornaments offered as security while availing a loan even after the same is cleared on the premise that the borrower has not discharged his liability in respect of another loan ?

2. The petitioner availed a personal loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the Canara Bank (‘the Bank’ for short) on 31.1.2012 agreeing to repay the same with interest in equated monthly instalments in a span of three years. The personal loan was availed on the basis of a demand promissory note executed by the petitioner in favour of the Bank and no security of any sort was obtained at the time of the transaction. The petitioner also availed a gold loan of `.85,000/- from the Bank on 11.5.2012 on pledging 46.700 grams of gold and agreeing to clear the same with interest on or before 10.5.2013. The petitioner asserts that he is willing to clear the gold loan in its entirety and that the Bank is bound to release the gold ornaments pledged without retaining it as security for the personal loan. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to release the gold ornaments pledged on the petitioner clearing only the gold loa