ARATIBALA MOHANTY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question of law that arises for considertion in this writ application is whether the pawnee not being in a position to release the pledged articles for some supervening circumstances can charge interest on the amount in question for the period for which the said pawnee was not in a position to release the pledged articles.

(2.) This question arises in the following circumstances : The petitioner pledged gold ornaments with the opposite party - State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, and took three different loans on three different dates by executing promissory notes. It was a stipulation in the promissory note that the loan would be repaid with interest in instalments within a specified period failing which the pawnee (the Bank) would be at liberty to dispose of the pledged articles by public auction. Between 3-12-1973 and 23-7-1974 by pledging 729.700 grammes of gold, the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 17,200/-. On 2-4-1976, the petitioner wrote to the Bank to release the gold ornaments pledged under Account No. 15/557 and requested that she may be intimated the outstanding amount of the principal and the interest so that she would be able to pay the money and release the ornaments. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure 1. Again on 21-12-1976, the petitioner wrote another letter stating therein that she was interested in releasing all the ornaments covered under the three gold loans and she should be intimated about the total amount she was required to pay towards principal and interest so that she could get the gold released. This letter has been annexed as Annexure 2. As no reply was received from the Bank, the petitioner gave a legal notice which has been annexed as Annexure E to the counter-affidavit of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 3 intimated the petitioner by letter dated 7-6-1977 that the gold in question had been sized by the police in connection with a criminal case against the husband of the petitioner and the Bank was holding the property as Zimadar and, therefore, the Bank would not be able to release the gold. It was also stated therein that the petitioner should wait for further hearing from the Bank. This document has been annexued as Annexure 2. The gold in question had been seized pursuant to an order of attachment passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri, in Misc. Case No. 44 of 1974 initiated against the petitioner' husband under Sec. 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance by order dated 13-5-1977. The petitioner appeared in the said proceeding and claimed that the property was her Stridhan property and, therefore, could not be attahced. The Sessions Judge vacated the order of attachment on 23-9-1981. But notwithstanding the vacation of the order of attachment, the Bank never wrote again to the petitioner though it had promised to do so under Annexure 3. On 30-8-1988 the petitioner tendered a cheque of Rs. 500/- for encashment which was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground that the funds had been attached by the District and Sessions Judge. This intimation has been annexed as Annexure 4 and obviously the Bank was under an misapprehension, as the order of attachment had been vacated since 23-9-1981. On 8-10-1988, the Bank gave a notice to the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,76,232.88 representing the principal amount and the interest thereon in respect of three loans, failing which the Bank would sell the ornaments by public auction. This letter has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application. The petitioner, however, approached the Bank stating that the petitioner would not be liable to pay any interest as the Bank itself had refused to release the gold on the ground of so-called attachment by the Sessions Judge. The Bank, however, gave another notice on 12-11-1988 under Annexure 6 requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,79,478.28 paise. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court.

(3.) The only contention raised by Mr. Ratho for the petitioner is that the petitioner having approached the Bank to take release of the pledged articles on 2-4-1976 but the Bank refusing to release these articles on the ground that the articles have been seized by the police, would not be entitled to charge interest on the loan amount for that period and even after the vacation of attachment by the Sessions Judge, the Bank not having intimated the petitioner even though it had earlier promised to do so under Annexure 3 till 1988, the Bank cannot charge interest for the period.