Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi filed a case against the State Bank of India because she was worried about her jewelry being returned to someone else. Let's dive into what the court decided!
Mrs. Rajalakshmi was upset because her jewelry was pledged at the bank by someone else, Mr. P. Thiyagarjan. She didn't want the bank to give her jewelry back to him without hearing her side of the story. So, she asked the court to make sure the bank listens to her first.
The case was heard by Justice P.B. Balaji. Mrs. Rajalakshmi wanted the court to issue an order. This basically means she wanted the court to tell the bank to consider her complaint before doing anything with her jewelry.
"The petitioner has made a representation dated 23.09.2025 to the respondents bank, setting out her objections."
The court agreed with Mrs. Rajalakshmi. The bank must listen to her objections before deciding what to do with the jewelry. They have to do this within two weeks of getting the court's order. This means Mrs. Rajalakshmi doesn't have to worry about her jewelry being handed over without her getting a chance to speak.
Justice P.B. Balaji made it clear that the bank should not hand over the jewelry without hearing Mrs. Rajalakshmi's side. The court wrapped up the case with this direction, and no extra charges were applied.
"The decision to return the jewelry... would be subject to hearing and considering the objections of the petitioner."
The bank now has to follow the court's order and make sure they consider Mrs. Rajalakshmi's objections before making any final decisions about the jewelry. This gives her a fair chance to explain her side and protect her belongings.
