KAMALJIT KAUR SIDHU Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal deserves to be allowed on the basis of a decision of the State Commission, West Bengal in Allahabad Bank V/s. Mrs. Sudha Srivastava,1993 3 CPR 459, wherein it was held that with respect to joint account of wife and her husband, banker's lien could not be exercised with respect to money due from the husband. Several decisions of different High Courts were referred to therein.

(2.) Brief facts of the case in hand indicates that Four FDRs were obtained by Kamaljit Kaur Sidhu and her husband Gurminder Singh Sidhu from Punjab and Sind Bank, Nabha Branch. The particulars of the FDRs are Rs.70,000/- and three FDRs of Rs.10,000/- each. These were payable to either or survivor. Against the FDR of Rs.70,000/- loan was taken by the appellant from Mohali Branch of the Bank and after adjustment of that loan to the tune of Rs.96,950/- the remaining amount for the FDRs referred to above was payable. Since the Bank refused to pay the same, the complaint was filed. The Bank contested the claim by filing written statement taking up preliminary objections indicating some fraud committed by Gurminder Singh Sidhu who was Manager of the Bank by allowing over draft to certain parties. The details are given in para 1 of the reply and that the matter was investigated by the Vigilance Department of the Bank. It was also mentioned in para No.1 of the reply on merits that after adjustment of the loan, only a sum of about Rs.30,000/- was due on fixed deposit receipts. It was further stated that in a civil suit filed Shri Surjit Singh, Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Nabha has passed a conditional order and Mr. Sidhu, appellant No.2 had failed to deposit the security within 15 days. On behalf of the complainants, a joint affidavit of Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur Sidhu and Gurminder Singh Sidhu was filed. Gurminder Singh Sidhu complainant was also cross-examined on the other hand, statement of Jasbir Singh, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Nabha was recorded and the Bank produced certain documents. After hearing arguments, the District Forum passed the impugned order that disputed question of facts and law were involved and Civil and Criminal litigation was already pending against Gurminder Singh Sidhu and no effective relief could be granted to the complainant was passed dismissing the complaint. We have heard Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate of the appellant and Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

(3.) At the outset, it may be stated that it is admitted case of the parties that against the FDRs in dispute, some loan was taken from Mohali Branch of the Bank and after the adjustment of that amount, the remaining amount of the FDRs comes to about Rs.30,000/- and it is against that amount that the Bank is exercising its lien in not making payment. As is clear in the statement of Jasbir Singh, Gurminder Singh Sidhu as Manager of the Bank illegally or wrongly allowed over draft facilities to certain parties and the Bank has filed civil suits against these parties impleading Gurminder Singh Sidhu also as defendant. Although, copies of those plaints have not been produced on the file, it is taken that relief is being claimed against Gurminder Singh Sidhu as well. But it cannot be said that any amount is due to Bank from Gurminder Singh Sidhu in respect of these cases against which Bankers lien could be exercised at this stage. By merely allowing over draft facility, the Manager of the Bank does not become a debtor of the Bank. It is only against the money due to the Bank and the money in possession of the Bank belonging to such a person that a Banker's lien could be exercised. Thus it is not necessary to go into the allegations of fraud or connivance on the part of Gurminder Singh Sidhu in allowing over drafts, such matters may be independently pending in Civil Court or in the Criminal Court as is alleged. At this stage, suffice it to say that whatever amount was due to the Bank from Gurminder Singh Sidhu against loan taken against security of the FDRs stand adjusted and after adjustment, the remaining amount is due to the persons in whose name the FDRs were issued i. e. either of the appellants. The District Forum was not justified in staying its hands in not deciding the dispute as has been narrow down as stated above. While accepting the appeal, order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Forum to decide it on merits according to law. Parties present are directed to appear before the District Forum, Patiala on 24.7.96.