Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

171. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers-Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a Hiqh Court and policy brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such, balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect.

16. In Syndicate Bank v. Vijaya Kumar (supra), Supreme Court made following observations about exercise of right of general lien of Bankers as under:

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 recognized 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.

17. Provisions of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as Section 171 of the Contract Act, both have their own role to play in this kind of fact situation. We need not say that the State Bank of India is one legal entity, irrespective of its hundreds of branches. Consequently, if any amount is due against a person either as borrower or as guarantor, in the account of another branch, the bank along with all its branches being one legal entity could exercise its general lien over documents/title deeds deposited in one branch in respect of loan in another branches for documents are with the bank. In this connection, Clause 17th of Agreement for Hypothecation and Guarantee is reproduced below:

20. For the aforesaid reasons in terms of Section 171 and in the light of judgment in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Vijaya Kumar (supra), we feel that the bank was absolutely justified in feeling inhibited in returning the documents/title deeds. M/s. Bava Trading Corporation, M/s. Cauvery Knitting Co. and K.R. Krishnamurthy & Sons and suit guarantor for all the credit and loan facilities sanction to the said firms. As such, in all the three cases, notwithstanding the provisions under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, the bank was entitled to exercise its right of general lien under Section 171. The mortgagors right to get back title deeds under Section 60 is right of general nature. Provisions of the Contract Act under Section 171 carves out an exception to the said general rule in order to protect the interest of the bank by ensuring right to retain the document so that other loan accounts of the bank are also cleared by borrowers or guarantor without forcing the bank to file suits.