Bombay HC: Relationship between banker and customer is of debtor and creditor for money deposited by customer in the bank

 As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent's account in the books maintained by the bank. It is not as if the pass book is maintained by the bank as the agent of the constituent, nor can it be said that the pass book is maintained by the bank under the instructions of the constituent. In view of this, the Tribunal was, with respect, justified in holding that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee in the present case could not be regarded as a book of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1973

Assessment Year: 1962-1963

Decided On: 12.02.1982

Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.H. Kania and M.N. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: M.H. Kania, J.

Citation: (1983) 141 ITR 67,1982 SCCINLINEBOM 320

Print Page

Whether Banker can exercise general lien over property owned by husband for liability incurred by wife?

 In conclusion it may be held that the question of the

husband's implicitly incurring a liability on the contract entered into

by his wife with a third party, in the absence the husband's express or

implied consent thereto, does not arise. Had it been a case of contract

between wife and husband, given the statutory obligation of spousal

maintenance, the parameters, of course, would have differed.

      27. Veering back to the facts of the case, I may observe that




evidently the wife contracted, as the record reveals, the loan having

provided the sureties, who do not include her husband. The husband,

in fact, contracted the loan subsequently. In my considered view, the

Bank's plea that it bona fide believed that the petitioner could offer

his property as security is to be discounted. For by the time the wife

took the loan, the husband was not at all in the picture--his loan was

subservient.

      28. Unless a person is a party to a loan transaction in whichever

capacity, the question of the Bank's exercising the general lien vis-

vis the property of that person--even if he or she were the spouse of

the contracting party--does not arise. Put differently, it falls foul of

the contractual obligations of the banker and customer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT:

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

         TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/
                           WP(C).No. 2527 of 2015 (M)
                            
         LONANKUTTY ANTONY @ T.L.ANTONY, 
Vs

        THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
             DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
               ----------------------------------
                    W.P. (C) No. 2527 of 2015 (M)
               ----------------------------------
                Dated this the 8th day of March, 2016.

                     

Print Page