Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. In Chitty on Contracts, 29th Edition (2004) ? Volume-II, Page 496 on Bankers' Lien, it is stated as follows:

?... The most frequent example of circumstances inconsistent with the general lien is in the case of a deposit expressed to cover an advance for a specified purpose. However, once the original purpose has been fulfilled by repayment of the specified advance, if a customer knowingly permits the banker to retain the security, a general lien may ultimately be implied and its protection then claimed in respect of other advances?

9. In Wolstenholm v. Sheffield Union Banking Co. Ltd. (1886) 54 L.T. 746, the question that arose for decision was as to whether the Bank can retain a property belonging to a partner to satisfy the general account of his firm and Lord Esher, M. R. held that the Bank cannot exercise such lien over the private property of a partner for satisfying the general balance of account of his firm. To quote Lord Esher, M. R. :

"The bank said, 'we shall not account to Wing's trustees for the surplus, although the lease was his private property, because we have a right to keep it to satisfy the general account of his firm'. That was tantamount to saying, 'we are now claiming your surplus to pay the debt of somebody else.' The claim in effect was that, in virtue of the bank's general lien, they were entitled to retain the property of one man to pay the debt of another. That claim was based, not upon agreement, but on a supposed custom that bankers should in such a case have a general lien. There never was or could be a custom, however, by which you could take the property of one man to pay the debt of another. No such proposition was put forward in the cases cited, and no such proposition has ever been laid down in any of the cases respecting a banker's lien."

11. In Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Kanungo, the judgment-debtor who owned two Fixed Deposits executed two letters on 17.9.1980 creating a lien in favour of the Bank over the two Fixed Deposit Receipts and on these facts the Supreme Court held that the two letters executed by the judgment-debtor on 17.9.1980 created a lien in favour of the Bank over the two Fixed Deposit Receipts, this is thus a case where the owner of the Fixed Deposit Receipts had expressly agreed that the Bank would have lien over the Fixed Deposit Receipts. In this case, the Supreme Court has not laid down any law that the Bank can exercise its general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act over the properties of the surety for the liabilities of the principal debtor to the Bank, In S. Vasupataiah v. The Vysya Bank, Kudagenahalli Branch (supra) and in City Union Bank Ltd. v. C. Thangarajan (supra) cited by Mr. Kanungo, the learned single Judges of the Karnataka High Court and the Madras High Court respectively have referred to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (supra) and have held that the Bank can exercise lien over the properties of a guarantor or a co-promisor for recovery of the outstanding dues of the principal debtor or the promisor to the Bank. But as we have discussed above, Courts in England and in India have held that the Bank can exercise general lien over the properties of a customer for the general balance in such customer's account and not for the general balance of some other customer's account. Unless therefore a customer has expressly agreed that his properties can be retained as security for the outstanding balance in the account of some other customer, a Bank cannot exercise lien over the properties of such customer under Section 171 of the Contract Act. In the guarantee agreement executed by the petitioner for the cash credit account of M/s. Bimala Bhandar, a copy of which has been annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure-R/2, there is no such provision that the Bank can retain the properties of the petitioner as security for the outstanding balance in the loan account of M/s. Bimala Bhandar. In fact, the Bank has also not relied on any such provision in the guarantee agreement and instead has relied on the bye-laws of the Bank and the general lien of the Bank as provided in Section 171 of the Contract Act. As we have seen, the Bank has no such right under the bye-laws or Section 171 of the Contract Act to retain the gold ornaments of the petitioner as security for the outstanding balance in the loan account of M/s. Bimala Bhandar.

(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 lock 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 recognised as such.
In Brandao v. Barnett, (1846)12 Cl. and Fin.787 it was staled 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. The above passages go to show that by mercantile system the Bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognised and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a Banker has a general lien over such securities or bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business and has a right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer's debit balance. Such a lien is also applicable to negotiable instruments including FDRs which are remitted to the Bank by the customer for the purpose of collection. There is no gainsaying that such a lien extends to FDRs also which arc deposited by the customer?.