TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 ₹ 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 princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be attached . 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 1,76,232.88 representing the principal amount and the interest thereon in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r knew of the order vacating the attachment by the Sessions Judge and, therefore, the question of informing the pledger does not arise. It is further stated that the order of attachment having been vacated at the behest of the petitioner, the petitioner should have approached the Bank immediately after the same and that not having been done, she is not entitled to claim that no interest could be charged by the Bank on the principal amount for the period in question. 5. The correctness of the rival submissions depends upon the true legal position with regard to the rights and liabilities of a pawnee vis-a-vis the pawnor. The law with regard to pledge has been codified in Sections 172 to 176 of the Indian Contract Act. Under Sec. 172 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods. Broadly, this is the legal position with regard to pledge. 6. Mr. Ratho, the learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argues that the pawnee under law being bound to deliver, the goods when the pawnor exercises his right to redeem, his inability to return the goods disentitles him to charge interest for the period for which the pawnee was not in a position to give back the possession of the goods. In other words, the pawnee's right to receive interest ceases when the pawnee becomes a Zimadar on account of any supervening circumstances. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel places reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali AIR 1967 SC 1322 and The Bank of Bihar v. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the aforesaid proposition of law enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. But we are not in a position to appreciate as to how this decision supports the petitioner's contention that the moment the pawnee is not in a position to deliver back the possession of the goods pledged, the relationship of pawnor and pawnee ceases and the pawnor would not be liable to pay interest for that period. In The Bank of Bihar's case AIR 1971 SC 1210what their Lordships were considering was the right of a pawnee vis-a-vis the rights of other creditors of the pawnor. It was held by their Lordships that the rights of the pawnee who had parted with money in favour of the pawnor on the security of the goods could not be defeated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of redemption, has not discharged that obligation pursuant to Annexures 1 and 2 and has expressed its inability to do so under Annexure 3. The petitioner herself got the order of attachment vacated by moving the Sessions Judge on 23-9-1981 but thereafter never intimated the Bank about the same, nor wanted to exercise her right to redeem the pledged articles by satisfying the debt. The petitioner, on the other hand, wanted to rely upon the Bank's letter that she would be intimated about the release of the goods later. The Bank has taken the stand that it was unaware of the order of vacation of attachment by the Sessions Judge and since the petitioner herself got the order of attachment vacated, we think, it was the petitioner's duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
