Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 931 (PNJ)

Liberty Knitwear (Regd. ) v. Punjab National Bank

2003-07-11

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2003
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition has been filed against rejection of objections of the petitioner against execution of decree passed in favour of the Respondent-Bank for recovery of Rs. 2,86,425.68. Mainly, two objections were raised, namely:- (i) Goods worth Rs. 75,210/- were taken into possession by the Bank on 30.4.1981 but value thereof was not adjusted against the principal amount. (ii) Interest could be awarded only on the principal amount adjudged under Section 34 CPC but future interest has been awarded not only against the principal amount but also by merging component of interest in the decretal amount. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of the Apex Court in Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali and Anr., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1322, Para 17 and submitted that value of the pledged goods had to be reduced from the decretal amount. Learned counsel for the decree-holder-respondent opposed this contention and supported the view taken in the impugned order wherein it was observed that the objectors could not take advantage of their own wrong. The Bank moved an application for sale of the goods, the same was opposed and the court declined to permit the same to be sold. Further in the main judgment, the Bank had offered that the Judgment-debtor was free to take the goods and the plaintiff was willing to adjust the sale proceeds if the goods were allowed to be sold. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bank could have sold the goods without permission of the court and was bound to keep the goods in-tact and was responsible for loss or damage to the goods which were in custody of the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bank could have sold the goods without permission of the court and was bound to keep the goods in-tact and was responsible for loss or damage to the goods which were in custody of the Bank. No doubt, a pawnee is entitled to sell the goods pledged even without intervention of the court by giving reasonable notice of sale to the pawnee under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act and cannot be allowed to keep the goods as well as to recover the debt, as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in Lallan Prasad (supra), the respondent-plaintiff having applied for sale and in view of objection of the petitioner, having not been allowed to sell the goods and the respondent having offered to return the goods on deposit of the loan amount, no step having been taken by the petitioner for seeking return of the goods on deposit of the amount, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that the respondent will be responsible for damage to the goods. The petitioner never raised any issue that the goods were not being kept as a prudent person or other damage was being done to the goods. In the main case, the question of liability was gone into and it was open to the petitioner to show that in view of goods being available with the Respondent-Bank, claim for recovery of the amount to that extent was not maintainable. The Respondent-Bank was held entitled to recover the full amount without deducting the value of the goods which were being kept only as a security by the Bank to be returned on deposit being made. The Respondent-Bank was not bound to sell the said goods nor was responsible for any damage that may have been caused in natural course by keeping the goods on account of failure of the petitioner to pay the loan amount. The Respondent-Bank having committed no act or omission by which the petitioner was put to loss, the court was bound to implement the decree as passed. The petitioner did not challenge the decree. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, decree was not challenged as till then goods were in proper condition and on the assumption that on paying the money, he will get back the goods or will adjust its value. The petitioner did not challenge the decree. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, decree was not challenged as till then goods were in proper condition and on the assumption that on paying the money, he will get back the goods or will adjust its value. If that is so, nothing prevented the petitioner from seeking return of the goods soon after the deposit of the amount and only if the respondent had objected in returning the goods after taking the money, the contention of the petitioner could have merit. On these facts, the Apex Court judgment in Lallan Prasad (supra) does not help the petitioner. 4. On the question of interest, judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Ors., (2001-3)129 P.L.R. 837 (S.C.) lays down that "the principal sum adjudged" included the amount of interest charged on periodical rests and capitalised with the principal sum actually advanced so as to become an amalgam of principal and interest in such cases where it is permissible as per contract. In the present case, the amount claimed in the suit which included interest also has to be held to be principal sum adjudged for purposes of Section 34 IPC for calculation of future interest. Objection of the petitioner that component of interest could not be included in the principal sum adjudged could not, thus, be accepted, as rightly held by the trial court. 5. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.