Calcutta High Court
Lagnajita Chatterjee vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 23 February, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 73 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
LAGNAJITA CHATTERJEE
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 23rd February, 2017.
Mr. Sarathi Dasgupta,
Ms. Aradhita Ghosh Monda, Advs.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Soumya Roy, Adv.
...for respondent no. 2
Ms. Shampa Sarkar, Adv.
...for respondent no. 3 The Court : The petitioner assails an action of the State Bank of India as communicated by the writing dated December 6, 2016.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a student, perusing her higher studies abroad. She was awarded a scholarship. She has a bank account with State Bank of India. She had deposited the scholarship amount in such account maintained with the State Bank of India. Since she was travelling abroad for her higher studies, she has inducted her father as the joint account holder in respect of such account. The bank now alleges since the father of the petitioner is 2 a defaulter of certain loan amounts, the account held by the petitioner along with her father is put on hold. The bank has threatened to adjust the amount lying in such account against the outstanding in respect of her father.
Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 498 (Anumati vs. Punjub National Bank), All India Reporter 1971 Andhra Pradesh 165 (Nadikatla Anjanna & Ors. vs. Bandi Ramakrishna & Ors.), All India Reporter 1944 Patna 363 (Radha Raman Choudhary & Anr. vs. Chota Nagpur Banking Association Ltd. & Ors.) and an unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in RFA 164/2010 & CM No. 4991/2010 (Prabha Kaul through representatives vs. Chandra Kaul Muthoo & Ors.) in support of the proposition that the bank does not have a bankers lien over a joint account.
Learned advocate for the bank refers to Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 and submits that, the bank is entitled to invoke its right of lien over the bank account maintained by the petitioner. He submits that, the account concerned is a savings bank account where both the petitioner and the father have authority to operate such account on either or survivor basis. Therefore the bank is entitled to exercise its bankers lien over such account.
3
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
Anumati (supra) is concerned with a fixed deposit jointly owned on either or survivor basis pledged by one of the account holders with the bank. The issue coming up for consideration is whether the bank can adjust the amount of fixed deposit kept as pledge in respect of outstanding of one of the account holders without the authority, knowledge or concurrence of the other account holder. It holds in paragraph 11 that, parties to a joint account are not automatically authorised to pledge each other's credit. It states that, the banker has no right to set off the credit balance in the joint account except in respect of another joint account of the same parties. It goes on to note that, the difference between the joint fixed deposit account and a joint savings, current or other account. It notes that in case of fixed deposit there is no right of one of the depositors to operate such account on its own and withdraw the money on maturity.
Nadikatla Anjana (supra) is concerned with a garnishee proceedings in respect of rent revivable. It cannot be read to mean that, a banker cannot apply its bankers lien recognised under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in respect of a joint savings bank account. No banker is involved in the proceedings.
4
Radha Raman Choudhary (supra) is concerned with a fixed deposit. There difference between a fixed deposit and a saving account is noted in Anumati (supra). The fact scenario in the present case is absolutely different to that obtaining in Prabha Kaul (supra). Prabha Kaul (supra) relates to a suit for declaration and injunction where the allegation is of illegal conversion of fixed deposits and bank accounts by one of the relatives.
Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 recognises bankers lien. Section 171 of the Act of 1872 is as follows :
"S. 171. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy-brokers.- Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect."
A banker is entitled to exercise its bankers lien over properties which comes to its possession in the usual course of business, of its constituent who is in default to it. In a joint savings bank account, with instructions of either or survivor basis, any of the two account holders is allowed to operate the same. Anyone of the two joint account holder is recognised by the joint account holders to have complete right to deal with the entire amount in the account without any further from the other account holder. A savings bank account with either or survivor clause for 5 its operation, is considered to be the property of anyone of the joint account holder. It is on such basis that the entirety of the amount lying such account of the joint account holder is allowed to be transacted by one anyone of them. The joint account holders authorise the bank to do so when they issue the instruction to the bank, to allow the operation of the account on either or survivor basis. In such a scenario it is not open to anyone of the joint account holders to complain, at the time of exercise of bankers lien, or thereafter, that the amount lying to the credit of a joint savings bank account cannot be treated to be the property of one of the account holders for the purpose of exercise of bankers lien. The contention of the petitioner, if accepted, will create a non-existent dichotomy. Such contention, if accepted, will mean that, a bank will treat the amount lying credit of a savings bank account to be the property of anyone of the joint account holders for all purposes of its operation, but would not be able to treat it to be so when comes to exercise of its bankers lien recognised under section 171 of the Act of 1872. Such a position cannot be accepted.
In such circumstances, I find no substance in the present writ petition. W.P. No. 73 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) TR/ 6