S.JAGATHESWARAN vs THE INDIAN OVERSEAS

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 01.10.2026
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 26.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
1. S.Jagatheswaran
2. C.Sakthivel ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. by its Chief General Manager,
Salem Regional Office,
No.38, Padma Towers,
Opp: Town Railway Station,
Agraharam, Salem - 636 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Indur Branch, Indur – 636 803,
Dharamapuri District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records
of the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 which is communicated to the
petitioners on 28.07.2026, passed by the second respondent and quash the
same, consequently directing the respondents to close the education loan
account of the first petitioner viz., A/c.No.0993033951400010 with
cancellation of MOD and return all original documents of the petitioners,
which have been deposited at the time of processing of the educational loan
application of the first petitioner viz., Jagatheswaran vide sanction letter dated
24.02.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothirmanian
For Respondents : Ms.V.Rajeswari
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order dated 27.11.2025
which is communicated to the petitioners on 28.07.2026 passed by the second
respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to close
the education loan account of the first petitioner viz.,
A/c.No.0993033951400010, cancel the Memorandum of Deposit and return all
original documents of the petitioners, which have been deposited at the time of
processing of the educational loan application of the first petitioner viz.,
Jagatheswaran, vide sanction letter dated 24.02.2014.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, on
22.01.2014, the second respondent bank, namely Indian Overseas Bank,
sanctioned an education loan of Rs.12,70,000/- in favour of the first petitioner,
S.Jagatheswaran. The second petitioner, who is the father of the first petitioner,
is the co-obligant / co-borrower in respect of the said loan. As security, the
registered sale deeds bearing Document No.4191 of 2008, dated 15.12.2008,
and Document No.1239 of 1996, dated 24.06.1996, the power of attorney deed
bearing Document No.584 of 2008, Patta No.549, the encumbrance certificate
and other documents relating to the property offered as collateral security were
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
deposited with the respondent bank. Of the total sanctioned amount, only a sum
of Rs.10,16,000/- was disbursed to the petitioners during the period from 2014
to 2016.
3. The first petitioner has completed the medical course. On
30.06.2025, the petitioners repaid the entire outstanding loan amount of
Rs.28,52,200/-. However, even after the said payment, the respondent bank did
not process and cancel the memorandum of deposit of title deeds relating to the
petitioners’ property. The title deeds have also not been returned. On
18.11.2025, the first petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents by
email. In response, a reply email dated 18.12.2025 was received, stating that
the dues payable on the first petitioner’s loan account amounted to Rs.
24,22,530.67. It was further stated that another education loan had been
obtained in respect of the second petitioner’s daughter for Rs.4,03,139.64, and
that unless that loan was also closed, the documents could not be returned.
4. Under these circumstances, the petitioners initially filed
W.P.No.49941 of 2025. By an order dated 17.06.2026, the respondent bank
was directed to consider the first petitioner’s representation dated 18.11.2025,
after affording an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the impugned order was
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
passed, requiring the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,504.67 towards their
education loan and to deposit a further sum of Rs.4,35,699.64 towards the loan
obtained by the second petitioner for his daughter, who is the sister of the first
petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ
petition.
5. The petitioners’ challenge the respondent bank’s demand on the
ground that it is unjustly demanding further amount after the entire outstanding
balance, as indicated to them, was deposited and the loan was closed. With
reference to the second education loan, they contend that there is no connection
between the two loans and no contract permitting the retention of the present
collateral security in respect of the other education loan. The other education
loan will be duly closed.
6. The writ petition is resisted by the respondent bank through a
detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that, in respect of the first petitioner’s
education loan, the second petitioner is a co-applicant /co-obligant and is
treated as a borrower. On 30.06.2025, the first petitioner remitted a sum of
Rs.28,52,000/- into his own savings bank account and promised to remit the
entire dues on both loan accounts shortly. However, he did not do so.
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
Thereafter, on 31.10.2025, the petitioners visited the respondent bank,
withdrew a sum of Rs.25,51,000/- and remitted the same into the first
petitioner’s education loan account. After crediting the said amount, a balance
of Rs.1,00,456.67 remained as on 31.10.2025. The petitioners have not paid the
balance till date, and, as on 31.08.2026, the total outstanding balance is
Rs.1,43,612.67.
7. Apart from this, the second petitioner obtained another education
loan for his daughter, Sivaranjani. The said loan account has become a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA), and the total amount outstanding as on date is
Rs.4,44,028.64. The second petitioner is also the co-obligant in the said loan
account. Therefore, the respondent bank contends that it is entitled to exercise
its right of general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872. The
respondent bank accordingly contends that, unless the petitioners settle both
amounts, the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds cannot be closed and the
documents cannot be returned to the petitioners.
8. Mr.M.R.Jothimanian , learned counsel for the petitioners would
rely upon the judgment of this Court in S.Balaji v. The Banking Ombudsman
and another (2025:MHC:950) and the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
Court in N.Rajathi v. The Manager, Canara Bank and others
(W.P(MD)No.506 of 2014) to contend that the banker’s general lien is not
available to the respondent bank, inasmuch as the parties to the two loan
transactions are different. The borrower in the present loan is the first
petitioner, whereas the borrower in the other loan is his sister. Since the two
transactions are different, the banker’s general lien cannot be exercised. As far
as the dues under the present loan are concerned, the learned counsel would
submit that the petitioner visited the bank and, only upon the instructions of the
respondent bank’s officials, deposited the entire sum of Rs.28,52,000/- into the
bank. The bank is now wilfully and wantonly giving credit only from a
subsequent date and claiming further credit interest accrued in the intervening
period. When the petitioners have deposited the entire amount, no further
amount can be demanded towards the dues.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Zonal Manager, Central Bank of
India v. Devi Ispat Limited and others ((2010) 11 SCC 186), particularly
paragraph No.28, to contend that, when the respondent bank, being an
instrumentality of the State, acts contrary to the public interest or acts unfairly,
it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in such matters, even where
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
the dispute falls within the contractual realm, a writ petition under Article 226
can be entertained and relief granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel would
also reiterate the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
M.Shanti v. Bank of Baroda (2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37703).
10. Per contra, Ms.V.Rajeswari , learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Bank, would submit that the question whether the banker’s general right
of lien under the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 can be exercised in the
instant case requires an examination of the loan transactions and a decision
thereon. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction, as the
matter is purely civil in nature. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has considered the entire question relating to the
exercise of the banker’s general right of lien in Syndicate Bank v. V.Vijay
Kumar ((1992) 2 SCC 330). The law laid down in that regard is that movables
entrusted to the bank by way of bailment can be retained in exercise of its
general lien when the petitioner owes dues to the bank. Learned counsel would
also rely upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Rukkiya K.T. and
another v. IDBI Bank Limited (2026 SCC OnLine Ker 1191).
11. Learned counsel would submit that, even under this Court's
decision in S.Balaji (cited supra), the right is exercisable only if the
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
transactions are different in nature. In the present case, a perusal of the loan
documents shows that the property belongs to the second petitioner and that he
is the co-obligant in both education loans. Accordingly, the nature of his
liability is not different in respect of the two loan accounts. Learned counsel
would also rely on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in B.
Kamalakannan v. The Managing Director, Canara Bank and others
(W.A.No.749 of 2012) . She would contend that the bank is entitled to exercise
its general lien to withhold the documents in respect of the second education
loan obtained by the second petitioner for his daughter, who is the sibling of
the first petitioner. She would further contend that, when the principal loan
itself remains undischarged, the question of considering the banker’s general
lien does not arise at this stage.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
13. Firstly, with reference to the balance claimed in respect of the
first petitioner’s loan account, it must be seen that the petitioners were left with
the challan produced by them and annexed at page No.34 of their typed set of
papers. An image of the challan is reproduced below:
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
14. In order to justify its claim, the respondent bank has produced a
copy of the challan annexed at page No.1 of its typed set of papers. An image
of that challan is reproduced below:
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
15. Thus, it can be seen that neither document is a pay-in slip signed
by the first or second petitioner. It is the contention of the bank that the
petitioners came to the branch and deposited the money into their own savings
bank account is not supported by the documentary evidence on record. When
this Court directed the learned counsel for the bank to obtain instructions, it
was admitted that there was no pay-in slip and that, upon the cash being
entrusted to the bank officials, the officials themselves deposited it into the
savings bank account. The handwriting found on the challan belongs to the
bank officials, and the signature is also theirs. The purpose as mentioned in the
challan clearly states that it is for the purpose of clearing the educational loan.
That is written by the bank officials themselves.
16. Therefore, the bank’s entire case that the petitioners deposited the
money into their savings bank account falls flat. It also does not stand to reason
that, if the petitioners brought cash with the understanding that it was to be
deposited only into the savings bank account and not into the loan account,
there was no necessity for the bank officials to fill in the above challans. The
petitioners should have been advised to deposit the amount into their savings
bank account. Thus, the documents vindicate the petitioners’ stand that they
went to the branch, ascertained the entire outstanding amount due as on that
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
date and paid it in full. Even now, the respondent bank’s case is that the
amount so paid was the entire amount outstanding as on 30.06.2025. Therefore,
when the entire amount was paid, and the loan stood discharged without any
concession whatsoever from the bank, the act of keeping the amount in the
savings bank account, at the instance of the respondent bank’s officials
themselves, and thereafter obtaining a withdrawal slip only on 31.10.2025 is
attributable solely to the bank. The petitioners cannot be faulted for the bank’s
actions, undertaken for its own convenience, queries or other circumstances.
17. Thus, the lis in the instant case does not merely determining the
nature or quantum of dues in a contractual dispute; this Court has to consider
whether the respondent bank acted fairly. It is unfair for the bank officials
themselves to deposit the entire amount into the savings bank account and
thereafter demand further interest for the ensuing months up to 31.10.2025,
when the amount was appropriated towards the loan account. Thus, I hold that
the first claim, relating to further dues in respect of the first petitioner’s loan
account, is illegal, as the entire loan amount stood discharged as on 30.06.2025.
18. As far as the second question, relating to the exercise of the
bank’s general lien is concerned, in S. Balaji (cited supra), I had occasion to
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
consider the issue. The pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Syndicate Bank (cited supra) forms the basis. I also considered various
pronouncements of this Court and other High Courts. The Division Bench of
this Court in M.Shanti (cited supra) had also specifically dealt with the said
issue. After considering the various judgments in this regard, it is held that, if
both loans are not between the same set of persons, the banker’s right of
general lien cannot be exercised. Paragraph 8.11 of the judgment in S.Balaji’s
case (cited supra ) can usefully be referred to in this regard. Having stated the
legal position, the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is also equitable. This Court queried the learned counsel for the
petitioners whether the other loan account could also be discharged, since the
first petitioner and the first petitioner’s sibling, Sivaranjani, have both become
doctors and only a sum of approximately Rs.4 lakhs remains due in that loan
account.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are not
seeking any concession and that, if the entire amount is intimated and some
time is granted, they will settle the said loan account also; however, reiterating
that the respondent bank has no right to insist upon the said payment before
cancelling the MOD relating to the present loan and releasing the title deeds.
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
Learned counsel would rely upon the Education Loan Scheme framed by the
RBI, under which no collateral security can be insisted upon for loans up to
Rs.4 lakhs.
20. While this Court agrees, in principle, with the learned counsel’s
contention that the banker’s right of lien cannot be exercised, given the
petitioners’ capacity to pay, the fact that the first petitioner’s sister has also
completed her MBBS course and is practising, and that the amount due as on
28.09.2026 is Rs.4,44,028.64, I am of the view that the said amount can be
directed to be paid by the second petitioner within a short period.
21. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following
terms:
(i) The loan account of the petitioners relating to the
education of the first petitioner is declared to have been closed in
full, and no further amount shall be due and payable by the
petitioners in that regard;
(ii) The second petitioner shall duly arrange for payment
of the aforementioned sum of Rs.4,44,028.64 within a period of
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
eight weeks from today, together with interest accrued until the
date of payment;
(iii) Upon such payment, the respondent bank shall
cancel the MOD in respect of the collateral security and release the
original deeds in favour of the petitioners; and
(iv) No costs.
26.10.2026
(2/2)
vji
Neutral citation : Yes
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
To
1. The Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. by its Chief General Manager,
Salem Regional Office,
No.38, Padma Towers,
Opp: Town Railway Station,
Agraharam,
Salem - 636 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Indur Branch,
Indur – 636 803,
Dharamapuri District.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4301
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vji
Pre-Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.35296 of 2026
26.10.2026
(2/2)
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )