The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bank's lien does not extend to fixed deposits or separate accounts unless they are given as security, as per the provisions of the Contract Act.

The question is that whether on the facts of this case it can be said that the Bank has a lien over the F.D.Rs and the accounts for the alleged wrong/mischief with regard to joint account with his son for which an investigation is in progress. In order to decide the matter we must look to Sections 148 and 171 of the Contract Act. Section 148 deals with Bailment. Bailment is established only when there is delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose upon a contract that they shall when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or disposed according to the direction of the person who delivers the goods. It is the duty of the bailee to deal with the goods according to the direction of the bailor. Under Section 171 of the Act Bankers lien can properly arise only over thing which belong to customer but which are held by the Bank as security. There will be no bailment in case of fixed deposits or separate accounts. It has not been given to the Bank as security for doing/accomplishing certain things. Fixed deposits are basically a loan in the hand of bankers. Where an amount is deposited with the Bank in a separate account which has no connection or relation with the loans in suit in a different account in the absence of a specific contract the amounts in the other account cannot be adjusted in the claim against the suit. The lien of a Bank over the money of its customer does not extend to amounts which have been handed over accepted by the Bank for a specified purpose by the customers. If the contention of the Bank in this case is to be accepted it will create a chaotic situation and shall be death knell to the confidence of the customer in the Bank. It will given a handle and unbridled power to the Bank without the sanction of rule or law.

2. This writ application has been filed for a direction to the authority i.e. to the respondent-Bank to pay back/release the amount as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ application. Paragraph 4 is quoted below :

That the petitioner begs to state that he invested his terminal benefit deposited in the A/c. No. 81 of the Naharkatia Branch of the United Bank of India in the following order.

Date Nature of Investment Date of Maturity Amount invested

19-7-96 Fixed Deposit (one year) Rs. 75,600/-

In A/C No. 359 19-7-97

24-7-96 Fixed deposit (one year) Rs. 50,000/-

in A/C No. 374/96 24-7-97

24-4-96 Fixed deposit (66 months) Rs. 30,316/-

in A/C No. 199/96 24-1-2001

23-11-95 Fixed deposit (72 months) Rs. 9,000/-

in A/C No. 407/95 23-11-2001

24-4-96 Fixed deposit (66 months) Rs. 32,337/-

in A/C No. 200/96 24-10-2001

10-7-97 Savings A/c - Rs. 33,39980p

3. It may be mentioned here that all the abovementioned Bank accounts stand in the name of the petitioner and the money so deposited were his receipt of terminal benefits meant for his maintenance in his retired life.

4. The brief facts are as follows : The petitioner herein was a teacher and he retired from his employment under the Naharkatia Tea Estate on 31-12-94. The petitioner received an amount of Rs. 1,69,239.87 p. vide A/c. Payee cheque dated 28th June, 1995 of the State Bank of India issued by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund and Pension Fund Scheme as his terminal benefits. That is Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner deposited the abovementioned account payee cheque in the Savings Bank Account together with another account payee cheque for Rs. 66,638.20 p. received as ATPPF Pension in the Savings Bank No. 81 opened in the Naharkatia Branch of the United Bank of India on 5-9-95 and 25-6-96 respectively. The investment which was made out of the terminal benefits received by the petitioner has already been quoted above. It may be stated that the son of the petitioner one Tridib Mahanta happened to be the Cash-cum-General Clerk of the Naharkatia Branch of the United Bank of India and along with son also he had a Joint Account in the Bank. That Joint Account i