MAHA SHAKTI ENTERPRISES vs BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK

THIS appeal is by the complainant - M/s. Maha Shakti Enterprises challenging order of District Forum, Gurdaspur dated November 5,1996 dismissing the complaint. The opposite party, has obtained a decree from the Civil Court on August 22,1996 against M/s. Maha Shakti Steel Fabricators, and partners - namely Yogesh Sharma, Sunil Sharma, Vijay Sharma, Rakesh Sharma, Omesh Sharma, Raman Sharma, Mrs. Sunita, Mrs. Santosh Sharma. The decree is for recovery of Rs. 1,18,168.82 p.

THE present complainant has a current account No. 3341 with the opposite party - Canara Bank Branch, Pathankot. THEre was a fixed deposit receipt in the sum of Rs. 12,000/- in favour of the complainant firm. THE Bank was asked to encash the same and credit the proceeds in the aforesaid current account of the complainant vide their letter dated March 27, 1995. A reply was given by the Bank that this could not be done because the Bank has lien over the aforesaid FDR in view of the decree aforesaid and the partners of the present firm are also partners of the judgment-debtors firm. At this stage, it may be observed that the present partners of the complainant firm are - Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Raman Kumar Sharma, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Sunil Kumar Sharma and Smt. Santosh Sharma. Thus the complainants filed the present complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the Bank in not crediting the proceeds of the FDR in their account. THE Bank took up the plea as briefly noted above of exercise of lien. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and we have perused the appeal record as well as record of the District Forum. The Bank has general lien as provided under Section 171 of the Contract Act, which reads as under : "Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy brokers may in the absence of a contract to the contrary retain, as security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect".

In the present case, the partners of the complainant firm are also partners of the judgment-debtor firm and copy of the judgment of the Civil Court produced indicates that the aforesaid persons were also impleaded in their personal capacity in the civil suit against whom the decree was passed. Thus, on any amount payable to such persons on the basks of FDR the Bank can legitimate exercise lien, which has been done in the present case. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.