Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12
(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."
12. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners all the properties did not belong did not belong to the borrower. In the present case, the properties belong to the first petitioner / borrower. Therefore, in view of the finding of the Supreme Court, as reproduced above, we are of the view that the respondent bank has a general lien over the securities and other instruments deposited by the petitioner with the bank in the ordinary course of banking and such general lien being a valuable right of the bank as per the decision of the Supreme Court, it cannot be ignored in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. In such case, the respondent bank is well within its rights to retain the documents furnished by way of collateral security in relation to the earlier two loan accounts which were settled, as the third loan was not settled. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners."

16. In Smt Sadhna Gupta and others (supra) it was held by the Delhi High Court in Paragraph 24 as under :-

15

"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. "

17. In the present case, admittedly the title deeds belong to the petitioners. The Bank has a general lien over the said title deeds deposited by the petitioners with them in the ordinary course of Banking and such general lien being a valuable right of the Bank has to be given effect to as there is absence of an agreement to the contrary. The Bank is hence within its rights to retain the title deeds furnished by the petitioners in relation to the home loan advanced to them by the Bank as collateral security for the loan of M/s Chemitx (India) Indore which has not yet been settled.