C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE short question for decision in this writ petition is whether the respondent-bank, in exercise of the general right of Banker s lien has right to retain the gold ornaments, which were pledged to it by the petitioner for raising a particular loan, even after the discharge of the said loan, for the purpose of recovery of another loan subsequently advanced to the petitioner by the respondent. For a proper appreciation of the question involved, it is necessary to state briefly the facts of the case.

( 2 ) ON 24-6-1995 (sic) the petitioner took an agricultural loan of Rs. 3,000 from the respondent by pledging certain gold articles. In the year 1989 she repaid half of the said loan and the balance including interest as on 2-10-1989 was only Rs. 2,765. 00. On 8-9-1990 the petitioner was given credit for a sum of Rs. 2,765. 00 under the Central Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme. Thus the said loan stood practically discharged. Meanwhile on 4-1-1986 the petitioner contracted another loan of Rs. 21,000. 00 from the respondent-bank under Gramodaya scheme. She made some part-payments towards this loan and the balance due as on 2-10-1989 was Rs. 10,800. 00. The petitioner paid a further sum of Rs. 500. 00towards the Gramodaya loan on 30-9-1993. On 11-10-1993 the petitioner issued a notice to the bank to return the jewels pledged by her for raising the first loan i. e. , the agricultural loan since the same has been fully discharged. The bank, however, sent a reply on 30-10-1993 claiming that it has a general lien over the jewels pledged to it and it is entitled to retain the same till the Gramodaya loan is also fully discharged. Questioning the said action of the bank in refusing to return the gold jewels even after the discharge of the, agricultural loan the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to direct the respondent to release the gold ornaments.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that when the ornaments have been pledged with the bank against a specific loan the bank cannot have a general lien so as to cover the other debts in view of Section 174 of the Indian Contract Act (for short the Act ). In support of the said contention, strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Jagadishwar Reddy v. Manager, Andhra Bank, 1988 (1) ALT 605.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent-bank that it has a general lien under Section 171 of the Act and the fact that the jewels were pledged for raising a specific loan does not amount to a contract to the contrary. It is further contended that under Section 174 of the Act also, there is a presumption in favour of the pawnee in respect of subsequent advances. It is finally contended that, in any case, the writ petition is not maintainable and the remedy of the petitioner, if at all, is to approach the civil Court. In support of the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgments reported in Syndicate. Bank v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1066, Kimhan Mayan and others v. The Bank of Madras, (1896) ILR (19) Madras 234, N. T. P. C. Ltd. v. Bhami Construction Co. Ltd. , AIR 1989 A. P. 140, and Canara Bank v. Taraka Prabhu Publishers Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 1991 A. P. 258. It is also submitted that the judgment in Jagadislnvar Reddy v. Manager, Andhra Bank (supra) must be deemed to be impliedly overruled by the judgment of the Supreme Court Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar (supra ).

( 5 ) SECTION 171 of the Indian Contract Act deals with general lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy-brokers. It provides that bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorney of a High Court and policy brokers 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; 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document