Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11.It has been held by a Division Bench of Punjab High Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd., v. Aruna Mal Durga Das and Another reported in AIR 1960 Punjab 632, that in order to exercise the Banker's lien or right to set of, the demands must be mutual and between same parties. It was further held that the Bank has no lien on a partner's private account for an overdraft on partnership account or vice versa for want of reciprocity . Para 14 to 17 of the judgment are extracted below:

?(14) The rule of English law that the Bank has a lien or more appropriately, a right to set off against all monies of his customers in his hands has been accepted as the rule in India. According to this rule when monies are held by the Bank in one account and the depositor owes the Bank on another account, the Banker by virtue of his lien has a charge on all monies of the depositor in his hands and is at liberty to transfer the monies to whatever account, the banker may like with a view to set off or liquidate the debts: vide Llyods Bank Ltd. v. Administrator General of Burma, AIR 1934 Rang 66 and Devendrakumar Lalchandji v. Gulabsingh, AIR 1946 Nag. 114. (15) In order to create Banker's lien on several accounts it is necessary that they must belong to the payer in one and in the same capacity. Where the person has two accounts, one a trustee account and another private account at a Bank, deposits in the two accounts cannot be set off, the one against the other (see AIR 1934 Rang 66).

The aforesaid Section states that bankers 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. The said Section 171 does not extensively deal with the cases in which a banker can retain as security for a general balance of account any goods bailed to it. Section 171 of the Contract Act, however, is a recognition of the right of general lien of bankers under English Mercantile Law and therefore the decision of Court in England as to in which cases such lien can be exercised by bankers and in which cases such lien cannot be exercised by bankers will, equally apply to exercise of lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act.

?6. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol.20, 2nd Edn.p.552, para 695, lien is defined as follows:
Lien is in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. In this primary sense it is given by law and not by contract.
In Chalmers on Bills of Exchange, Thirteenth Edition Page 91 the meaning of "Banker's lien" is given as follows:
A banker's lien on negotiable securities has been judicially defined as "an implied pledge."A banker has, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, a lien on all bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business in respect of any balance that may be due from such customer." In Chitty on Contract, Twenty-sixth Edition, Page 389, Paragraph 3032 the Banker's lien is explained as under:
(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?.