Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

?A banker's lien on negotiable securities has been judicially defined as ?an implied pledge.?; A banker has, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, a lien on all bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business in respect of any balance that may be due from such customer.?; In Chitty on Contract, Twenty-sixth Edition, page 389, Paragraph 3032 the Banker's lien is explained as under:
?By mercantile custom the banker has a general lien over all forms of commercial paper deposited by or on behalf of a customer in the ordinary course of banking business. The custom does not extent to valuables lodged for the purpose of safe custody and may in any event be displaced by either an express contract or circumstances which show an implied agreement inconsistent with the lien........................
The lien is applicable to negotiable instruments which are remitted to the banker from the customer for the purpose of collection. When collection has been made the process may be used by the banker in reduction of the customer's debit balance unless otherwise earmarked.? (Emphasis supplied) In Paget's Law of Banking, Eighth Edition, Page 498, a passage reads as under :
?THE BANKER'S LIEN Apart from any specific security, the banker can look to his general lien as a protection against loss on loan or overdraft or other credit facility. The general lien of bankers is part of law merchant and judicially recognized as such.?; In Brandao v. Barnett (1846) 12 Cl; Fin 787 it was stated as under :
?Bankers most undoubtedly have a general lien on all securities deposited with them as bankers by a customer, unless there be an express contract, or circumstances that show an implied contract, inconsistent with lien.?
(v) MANU/TN/1432/2016 (B.Kamalakannan v. Managing Director, Canara Bank and Ors.):-
?15. The learned counsel for the appellant emphasizes the protection clause regarding pension to a retired employees, as provided under the proviso to Section 60 (1) of CPC. He also circulates our Supreme Court Judgment in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank & anr, reported in 2008 STPL (LE) 40958 (SC), for the proposition that even after the retiral benefits, such as Pension and Gratuity had been received by the appellant, they did not lose their character and continue to be covered by proviso (g) to Section 60 (1) of the Code.