Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.1 --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.

71. Further, a bare perusal of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, reveals that it is clearly and unambiguously inapplicable to the defendant no. 3 inasmuch as the "general lien‟ contemplated thereunder applies only to bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of High Court and policy-brokers. Admittedly, there is no contract which enables the defendant no.3 to exercise general lien over the plaintiff‟s goods.

27. We are unable to accept this submission. As has already been held earlier the general lien contained in Section 171 of the Contract Act is not covered by the provisions of Chapter VI of the MPT Act. The MPT Act no doubt deals with lien in respect, inter alia, of the goods imported but it does not deal with the general lien of the type we are concerned with in this case, namely, amounts due in respect of earlier consignments for which payment has not been made. The contract to the contrary as envisaged in Section 171 of the Contract Act has to be specific. The MPT Act including Chapter VI nowhere provides that the general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act would not be available to the wharfingers in a case where the MPT Act is applicable. ............."

"......

2020 SCC OnLine Bom 4352

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Sriyanesh Knitters, (1999) 7 SCC 359 has observed in paragraph 17 thus:

"17 Having come to the conclusion that the MPT Act does not oust the provisions of Section 171 of the Contract Act what we have now to see is whether the appellants can claim any relief or benefit under the said section. Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, reads as follows: 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. This section is in two parts. The first part gives statutory right of lien to four categories only, namely, bankers, factors, wharfingers and attorneys of High Court and policy-brokers subject to their contracting out of Section 171. The second part of Section 171 applies to persons other than aforesaid five categories and to them Section 171 does not give a statutory right of lien. It provides that they will have no right to retain as securities goods bailed to them unless there is an express contract to that effect. Whereas in respect of the first category of persons mentioned in Section 171 section itself enables them to retain the goods as security in the absence of a contract to the contrary but in respect of any other person to whom goods are bailed the right of retaining them as securities can be exercised only if there is an express contract to that effect.