DEBANGSU BASAK, J - (1.) The petitioner has sought a direction upon State Bank of India to release a fixed deposit lying in the name of the first petitioner being STDR No. 30681865193 for the principal amount of Rs. 18,52,000/- along with all accrued interest thereon.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the first petitioner enjoyed credit facilities from the bank. Such credit facilities were secured by deposit of title deeds and pledge of fixed deposits. The account of the first petitioner became a Non Performing Asset (NPA). Thereafter, the petitioners approached bank for settlement. The proposal for settlement was accepted. The petitioners discharged all their liabilities owed to the bank, to the full satisfaction of the bank. The bank issued a 'no due' certificate. Consequent upon the petitioners settling the claim of the bank, the petitioners became entitled to return of all securities including the fixed deposits. There were several deposits of the first petitioner lying with the bank. The bank released all such fixed deposits save and except one fixed deposit for the amount of Rs. 18,52,000/-. According to her, the contention of the bank that, the bank has exercised bankers' lien on such fixed deposit is not available to the bank in the facts and circumstances of the case. She has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the bank had issued the 'no due' certificate. Subsequent to the issuance of the 'no due' certificate, the bank cannot contend that, there is any amount outstanding on account of the petitioners for the bank to exercise bankers' lien. She has submitted that, the contention that, the bank had exercised bankers' lien over such fixed deposit for outstanding amount on account of a different company is without any basis. The claim of the bank is against a different legal entity. The petitioners cannot be made liable for such claim of the bank against a different legal entity. Corporate veil cannot be pierced in the facts of this case. In support of her contentions, learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon 1984 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 96 ( Gurbax Rai & Ors. v. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi ), All India Report 2004 Orissa page 142 ( Alekha Sahoo v. Puri Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors .), All India Report 2006 Punjab & Haryana page 73 ( M/s. Jay Kay Synthetics v. Punjab Financial Corporation, Chandigarh & Anr .), 2014 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases page 407 ( Balwant Rai Saluja and Anr. v. Air India Ltd. and Ors .) and All India Report 2016 Calcutta page 172 ( Md. Nayabuddin v. Union of India & Ors .). Referring to Md. Nayabuddin (supra), learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, even if the ratio laid down in Md. Nayabuddin (supra) are attracted then also, the bank cannot exercise bankers' lien over the fixed deposit of the petitioner for a claim of the bank against a different legal entity. She has submitted that, the bank should be directed to return the proceeds of the fixed deposit along with accrued interest therein.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the bank has submitted that, the account of the petitioner became NPA and that, there was a settlement between the bank and the petitioner. There was a settlement between the bank and a separate legal entity. However, the persons in control are same. The father of the petitioner is the person in control of such entity. In all likelihood, the petitioner also has a say in the affairs of such entity. Upon the bank finding that a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs and odd not being adjusted in respect of a bill discounting facility, enjoyed by such separate legal entity, the bank exercised bankers lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 over the concerned fixed deposit. The bank is entitled to do so. He has relied upon 1992 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 330 ( Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Vijay Kumar ) in support of his contentions.;