Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the bank submitted 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 ordinary course of banking business. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. . On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 referred to Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and submitted that the bank has no right by virtue of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act to exercise general lien over the properties mortgaged by respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the credit facility availed by the 4th respondent, partnership firm.

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 look 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 & Fin 787 it was stated 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 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.
6. In view of the finding of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the bank has a general lien over the securities and other instruments deposited by respondents 1 to 3 in the ordinary course of banking and such general lien being valuable right of the banker, as per Supreme court decision, it cannot be ignored in absence of an agreement to the contrary.
7. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 10th Sept., 2007, passed by DRAT as also the order dated 17th Jan., 2007, passed by DRT, Coimbatore. But this order will not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 3 to pay back the dues to the bank and, thereafter, to request the bank to release the documents. The civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. But there shall be no order as to costs.