Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The other important aspect that has to be seen is, the defendant Bank has not made it clear whether the documents are retained for general lien or as collateral security. Once again, if it is general lien, there has to be a relationship of Banker and customer between the Bank and the person depositing security, which should be one that has been received by the Bank in its ordinary course of banking. It can be stated that once the loan accounts are liquidated and on issuance of „No Due Certificate‟, the relationship of Banker and customer ceases. As a corollary, the right of „banker‟s lien‟ will come to an end. Therefore, in the absence of any outstanding for the purpose which the documents were deposited, the documents cannot be held as general lien. If it is to be treated as collateral security, then, the intention and offer of the title deeds for the said purpose have to be established. Though as per Exs. A.12 and B.2, there was a correspondence with respect to the same, viz., collateral security, admittedly, it was not acted upon as the defendant Bank had not lent the money sought for by the sister concern of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the retention of the documents by the defendant Bank is not legal.

means "a right of common law in a person to retain that which is rightfully and continuously in their possession belonging to another until the present and accrued claims (of the person in possession) are satisfied". Thus, from the expression "bankers lien" it is cleared that Bank overall forms of security that are deposited by the borrower in the ordinary course of business, there has to be a relationship of banker and customer between them. In Brandao v. Barnett, it was stated as under (All ER page 722- H) "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". It was held 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 the reduction of customer's debit balance. Lien contemplated under section 171 of the said Act relates to goods bailed to bank. Strictly, it is confined to securities and properties in the custody of a banker. Section 171 of the said Act expresses „goods bailed to them‟. The provision, therefore, indicates that the right to retain goods bailed is based on contract and retaining the same in absence of contract is not permissible. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra s/o Laxman Nikose v. Chief Manager and Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Nagpur, (2013) 5 Mah LJ 283 held that 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1224 Bank cannot exercise its right of general lien over the Title Deeds deposited by the petitioner after the entire loan amount was fully repaid by the petitioner..........

"xxx xxx xxx

6. ...............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 are deposited by the customer.

7. Applying these principles to the case before us we are of the view that undoubtedly the appellant Bank has a lien over the two FDRs. In any event the two letters executed by the Judgment-debtor on September 17, 1980 created a general lien in favour of the appellant Bank over the two FDRs. Even otherwise having regard to the mercantile custom as judicially recognised the Banker has such a general lien over all forms of deposits or securities made by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business. The recital in the two letters clearly creates a general lien without giving any room whatsoever for any controversy.