On 27.10.80 a Division Bench of the High Court discharged the Bank guarantee by an order passed in an appeal preferred by the Judgment debtor.
The appellant is Syndicate Bank.
90,000/ in favour of Registrar of the High Court.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court made an order of attachment on 21.11.80.
On 4.2.81 the appellant Bark appeared before the Court and raised objection against the attachment.
In the companyrse of the execution proceedings the Judgment debtor agreed to pay the decretal amount in the instalments of Rs.
3, partner of the Judgment debtor firm deposited by way of two Fixed Deposits Receipts FRDs for short of Rs.
The FDRs were to mature on 17.12.83 and 1.7.85 respectively.
Against the said order, the appellant Bank has filed the present appeal.
90,000/ in favour of High Court of Delhi.
1,00,000/ .
90,000/ in favour of Registrar of High Court of Delhi.
As per the recital in the said letters the Judgment debtor agreed that the deposits and renewals shall remain with the Bank so long as any amount on any account is due to the Bank from them i.e. M s. Jullundur Body Builders.
The companynsel for Decree holder addressed a letter to the appellant Bank that the said attachment has been made in execution of the decree.
35,OOO out of Rs.
90,000/ as security for the guarantee with the Bank.
35,000/ in the Court.
Respondent No.
17.9.80 respondent No.
5,000/ per month.
Thereafter the Bank issued a guarantee for a sum of Rs.
90,000/ deposited as security for the Bank guarantee on the ground that the same belongs to the Judgment debtor and therefore is liable to be attached.
The Bank agreed to furnish the Bank guarantee on the companydition that the Judgment debtor should deposit the entire sum of Rs.
1,04,441.35 p. with future interest 9.
On 10.9.80 the Judgment debtor requested the appellant Bank to furnish a Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.
2 hereinafter referred to as Judgment debtor have been enjoying various types of credit facilities from the appellant Bank for the last so many years.
On 5.3.81 the High Court passed an order rejecting the objection and directed the appellant Bank to deposit a sum of Rs.
The two companyering letters were also executed on the Banks usual printed forms on 17.9.80.
25,000/ respectively after duly discharging them by signing on the reverse of each FDR.
They were also enjoying overdraft facility with a limit of Rs.
65,000/ and Rs.
The firm by the name of M s. Jullundur Body Builders, respondent No.
To ensure companypliance with the undertaking, the Judgment debtor was required by the executing companyrt to furnish a Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.
1 hereinafter referred to as Decree holder obtained a decree against the Judgment debtor for Rs.
The Decree holder made an interlocutory application in the pending execution petition for attachment of a sum of Rs.
Jayachandra Reddy J. The question involved in this appeal is what is the meaning of Bankers lien in the legal terminology and how it is understood and exercised in the banking system.
Thus on that date the Bank guarantee stood discharged and the original Bank guarantee was returned to the appellant Bank.
