R.K. Agencies Limited (the plaintiff, in short) instituted this suit on 3 April 1987 in this Court essentially claiming a decree for Rs.28,04,027.76/-, a declaration that the fixed deposit receipt no.11/190 dated 28 November 1984 and the proceeds thereof are free from any claim or lien thereon by the defendant, interim interest, interest on judgment, receiver, injunction, cost, further or other relief.

After the institution of the suit the writ of summons was duly served upon the sole defendant, Central Bank of India (the defendant, in short) and after entering appearance the defendant eventually filed its written statement to contest the suit first in the month of May 2004 and thereafter reverified the written statement once more after its amendment in the month of August 2006.

The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint proceeds on the basis that “on or about 27 November 1984 the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with the defendant at its Office at 33, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta – 700 001” within the Original Jurisdiction of this Court. The amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was to be kept by the defendant in a fixed deposit account carrying usual interest.

On or about 28 November 1984 “the defendant granted a fixed deposit receipt for the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.”

On or about 1 December 1984 “a letter of lien on a printed form of the defendant was executed on behalf of the plaintiff purporting to create a lien on the said fixed deposit receipt for Rs.20,00,000/-.”

“The plaintiff intended that the above sum of Rs.20,00,000/- would be transmitted to a foreigner’s account in London provided the permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained in that behalf ”.

“As no permission of the Reserve Bank of India was forthcoming, the plaintiff instructed its advocate-on-record to demand the return of the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with all interest accrued thereon. The plaintiff’s advocate-on-record on the basis of the said instruction demanded the said sum with all accrued interest by a letter dated 28 May 1985.

The defendant even after the said demand “refused to return the said sum” contending that it had “a lien on the amount of the fixed deposit and” was “not liable to return the same to the plaintiff”. According to the plaintiff such contention of the defendant was and is not tenable in law and by such wrongful contention the defendant was and “is denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiff to obtain payment of the aforesaid money”.

On a plain reading of the plaint it appears that the refusal of the defendant to return the amount covered by the said fixed deposit was wrongful and such refusal gave the plaintiff its cause of action and the plaintiff as such instituted the suit in this Court claiming the above relief.

To meet the rather simple and straightforward case of the plaintiff the defendant in setting up its defence has said in its written statement that one, Ranjit Singh Sethia who was controlling two London based companies, namely S. L. Sethia Lyners Limited and Drumplace Limited, in fact, had arranged for deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- with the Calcutta main Office of the defendant through R. K. Agencies, namely the plaintiff herein and the said Sethia, the defendant and the plaintiff “throughout agreed and/or understood” that the said sum of Rs.20,00,000/- would be transferred to the defendant’s branch in London “for meeting the decretal claims of the defendants against the said two companies” which, as aforesaid, were controlled by the said Ranjit Singh Sethia.

In support of the above the defendant has relied on a letter dated 27 November 1984 written to the defendant by the plaintiff’s solicitor. In interpreting the purport of the letter, the defendant has further alleged that the said letter makes it clear that “the defendant/bank was given a lien over the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for an indefinite period pending clearance granted by the Reserve Bank of India for transfer of the sa