Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 5 March, 1992
10. The question of banker's lien/general lien fell for
consideration before the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay
Kumar, supra. The provision of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 was also noticed in the said case. Taking into consideration
Halsbury's Laws of England and provisions of the Contract Act in
respect of banker's lien, the following observation was made:
M.Shanthi vs Bank Of Baroda on 9 August, 2017
7. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance on another decision of this Court dated 9.8.2017 in W.P.(MD)
No.12613 of 2016 in the case of M.Shanthi v. Bank of Baroda. The
learned counsel for the petitioners specifically placed reliance on para
11 of the said decision.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
State Bank Of India And Anr Through ... vs Mrs. Jayanthi And Ors on 24 March, 2015
6. The first decision relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is State Bank of India and another v. Jayanthi and others,
reported in 2011 (3) MLJ 245 : 2011 (2) CTC 465. He pointed out that
in the said case it was observed that the deposit of title deeds by
which the mortgage was created by the deceased borrower,
N.P.S.Mahendran, was for a specific purpose to cover an advance for a
specific loan. When such is the situation, the borrower having
deposited the documents in order to secure a specific transaction, the
bank cannot contend that they could hold the documents for a balance
due in a different loan account, where the said N.P.S.Mahandran is not
a borrower. We have carefully perused the said decision and we find
that as far as the second loan account is concerned, the deceased
N.P.S.Mahendran was not a borrower. In such circumstances, it was
held that the documents furnished as security in relation to the first
loan account could not be withheld in relation to the other loan account
where deceased N.P.S.Mahandran was not the borrower. However,
such are not the facts in the present case. In the present case,
admittedly, the first petitioner is the borrower in relation to all the
three loans. Hence, this decision would not apply to the case of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
(6)
petitioners.
1