Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Whether the appellant further proves that under what provisions of law in regard to general lien of banking are override effect on the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963?

3. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower court calls for interference with by this court?

4. What order?"

10. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the defendant No.1 has filed this regular second appeal.

11. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed a serious error in coming to the conclusion that the Banker's General Lien cannot be made applicable in respect of a time barred debt?"

12. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 contended that the general lien of a banker to retain the goods bailed by a customer or any person on his behalf is statutorily recognized in Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He contends that the law relating to limitation prescribes that a person approaching the Court belatedly may loose the remedy but not the right. He contends that so long as a banker is in possession of funds of a customer or any funds deposited on behalf of the customer, it is entitled to exercise its lien and adjust it against the outstanding. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgments:

16. The question in controversy is whether the defendant No.1 could have denied the payment of the maturity value of the deposit, on the ground that the defendant No.2 had failed to repay the loan and that it had a general lien over the amount bailed to it, either by defendant No.2 or on his behalf.

17. In order to answer this question, it is appropriate to first see whether the defendant No.1 had placed on record the documents to establish: (i) the terms of loan sanctioned to defendant No.2; (ii) the terms of surety offered by the plaintiff; (iii) the steps taken by the defendant No.1 to recover the installments from out of the salary payable to defendant No.2 and or from the retirement benefits etc.,

25. Consequently, though ordinarily, the defendant No.1 had a general lien over all amounts lying with it, yet the defendant No.1 was bound to establish before the Court that it had taken due care and caution as provided under the loan agreement as well as surety document. Since the defendant No.1 has failed to produce the documents before the Court to establish that the defendant No.1 had done all that it could do to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the surety document, the defendant No.1 was not entitled to any remedy. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendant No.1 is liable to be dismissed.