Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The High Court, however, found that the two FDRs were given only by way of securities for the Bank guarantee and when once the guarantee is discharged, the amounts covered by the said two FDRs would belong to the Judgment-debtor since the charge is limited to the amount of the Bank guarantee. The High Court, in this context relied on the words "Lien to BG 11/80" which are found on the back of each FDR and according to the High Court in view of this endorsement, the Bank has no right to hold the security in their own favour after the Bank guarantee has been released and they are bound to return it to the customer namely the Judgment-debtor when he makes a demand on the Bank. The High Court also observed that the terms of the contract namely furnishing FDRs as security for the bank guarantee are inconsistent with the general lien that the Bank claims and the Bank can claim only a particular lien for the bank guarantee. It also observed that since the Bank guarantee has been discharged, the Bank has no right to hold the security for something more than what was agreed upon. We are unable to agree with this reasoning. As already noticed, the recital in the covering letters as extracted above clearly established that a general lien was created in favour of the Bank on the two FDRs. Merely because the two FDRs were also furnished as security for the issuance of the bank guarantee, the general lien thus created cannot come to an end when the Bank guarantee is discharged. The words "Lien to BG 11/80" do not make any difference.

33. In Sadhna Gupta (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-

"24. Thus, Section 171 creates a general as distinguished from a particular lien of bankers. This section, however, limits the right to a general lien, i.e., a right of the bankers to retain goods in their possession as a security for a general balance of account to them. This general lien can be excluded by special agreement whether expressed or implied from the circumstances but such agreement must be clearly in consistent with the existence of general lien. When a person has a number of accounts kept in the books of the bank, the customer cannot take the plea in the absence of any special contract to say that securities which he deposited are only applicable to one particular account and not subject to a general lien. In other words Section 171 is clear and categoric that unless a contract to the contrary is established by the plaintiff the bank's right of lien has to be accepted.
27. In State Bank of Mysore v. Lakshmi Construction P. Ltd., (2001) 103 Co. Cases 258 (Mad.), 'a general lien' appearing in Section 171 has been explained as:
"20. This "general lien" as it is realized from the section is culled by way of distinction from the "particular lien" of an artificer for work done by him on the goods in question was the basis for the English law and proved trade usage of relationship between bankers and customers. But it is also made clear that a banker's lien, when it is not excluded by special contract, express or implied, extends to all bills, cheques, and money entrusted or paid to him and all securities deposited with him, in his character as a banker. Thus, the statute does not seem to expressly refer to banker's lien in respect of deposits but, however, money has been held to be a species of goods over which, lien may be exercised. Looking into the provision of law stated above, there appears to be no lien or liability created by defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff in the instant case over their money for loan due to the plaintiff.