BANK OF BARODA Vs. RAJKAMAL WINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bank filed petition for attachment of FCNR deposit No. 036555 standing in the names of Smt. Maya Patchava the 4th respondent and another person, lying with the petitioner Bank to the extent to half share. The Presiding Officer, DRT, Hyderabad, passed order of attachment on 26.11.2001 and the order reads as follows:

(2.) THIS matter was heard on merit and the Presiding Officer, DRT, passed order on 12.8.2002 and the petition was dismissed. It is also observed in that order that the 4th respondent is at liberty to either continue the FCNR deposit or to withdraw the same. Aggrieved against that order the Bank has preferred this appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents also relies upon another decision in II (1995) BC 37=AIR 1993 Bombay 87 (The State Bank of India v. Javed Akhtar Hussain and Ors.) wherein it has been held that "The Bank being a debtor in respect of the money in fixed deposit, had no right to pass into service the doctrine of 'Banker's lien' and the money in fixed deposit". It has been observed in the above said decision that "The action of keeping lien was a sort of suo motu act exercised by the Bank/applicant in the present case, even without giving notice to the non -applicant No. 2 and his wife. Even though the applicant had filed Special Darkhast No. 200 of 91, it could have moved the Court for passing orders in respect of the amounts invested in TDR and RD accounts. However, the action of the applicant in keeping lien over both these accounts was unilateral and high -handed and even it is not befitting the authorities of the State Bank of India to do so. If such a thing would continue, perhaps in future the customer would lose his confidence in the Bank and I am afraid that the days are not far off."