Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. Defendant No.2 has produced correspondence entered into by it with the BPT being letters dated 5 th March, 1980 and their reply dated 22nd July, 1980 forming a chain of correspondence which is marked Exh.B.3 & B4 in evidence and is accordingly required to be read in evidence. The initial letter of defendant No.2 bank shows the general lien claimed by the defendant No.2 upon the certain goods which came to be imported under aforesaid B/L. It refers to 40 bundles stored in BPT bonded warehouse under bond No.1658 dated 21st January, 1976. It must be remembered that 56 packages came to be imported under one B/L. 40 of them came to be sent to the bonded warehouse of the BPT as endorsed on delivery order Exh.P.1. The letter is in respect of these 40 bundles. Defendant No.2 claims a general lien over those goods. Defendant No.2 has shown the account of defendant No.1 in the subject matter of the letter. BPT has in its reply stated that it would have to enquire whether the consignee has paid the charges and that once they were paid by the consignee. BPT would deliver the goods to them or their clearing agents. Hence BPT has sought to ignore general lien claimed by the Plaintiff over those goods. The fact of the claim of the general lien itself shows that the Plaintiffs are not owners themselves, but claim a right of an unpaid seller. The letter written by the BPT in reply to the letter of Defendant No.2 bank which is dated 22nd July, 1980 shows that the consignees are other than defendant No2. Consequently, until 22 nd June, 1980 the BPT had not sought to make any claim upon the defendant No.2 bank as the owner of the suit consignment.