Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. I have no hesitation in rejecting the bank's claim. It appears to me that the claim of the bank is inconsistent with the terms of the special contract. The contract was to furnish a guarantee for Rs. 90,000 on the understanding that the bank will hold the deposit receipts as a security for the guarantee they give on behalf of their customers. The contract is expressed pithily in those "lien to BG 11/80". The charge is limited to the amount of the bank guarantee. After the bank guarantee has been released the bank has no right to hold the security in their hands. They are bound to return it to the customer when he makes a demand on them. It seems to me that the express term of this contract between the banker and the customer is inconsistent with the general lien that the bank claims. It could claim a particular lien for the bank guarantee. But it has no general lien. Now, that the bank guarantee has been discharged the bank has no right to hold the securities for something more than what was originally agreed upon. Sir Macenzie Chalmers in his Bills of Exchange, 3rd Edn. (p. 92) says :

"The terms on which securities are deposited may, of course, create merely a particular lien and not a general lien."

16. In my opinion the present is a case of particular lien.

17. The letter of 17th September, 1980, is on the usual printed form which the bank gets signed from the customers in their daily routine business. It is not addressed to the particular transaction of bank guarantee. The words written by the officer of the bank on the reverse of the deposit receipts are specific and explicit. They are the controlling words. They are decisive of this case. They unambiguously tell us what was in the minds of the parties at that time, "Lien to B.G.". That is what the bank wanted from the customer. The customer was prepared to give the security of the deposit receipts to the bank in return for their preparedness to stand surety for him. The written word will prevail over the printed word. The written word expresses truly the intention of the parties. That, to my mine, ought to prevail. The letter of September 17, 1980, in the first paragraph says the same thing. The letter has to be read as whole. It has to be read with the words written in hand on the receipts, namely, "lien to B/G 11/80". The court has to see the real nature of the transaction. What matter is the substance and not the form.