Case: Bank Of Bihar Vs. State Of Bihar &amp; Ors

2. According to the allegations In the plaint one of the methods of making advances followed by the plaintiff Bank was that the constituents pledged their merchandise on a cash credit system with the Bank and took anvances on the pledged goods. The Bank held the goods as security for the advances made and the constituents either provided the Bank with godown or the Bank kept the pledged goods in godowns of its own and charged rents from the constituents. The defendant No. 2 entered into a cash credit system agreement with the plaintiffs Arrah Branch, the arrangement being that the sugar would be pledged under the cash credit system. On December 16, 1946 the advance made to defendant No. 2 stood at Rs. 3.20,486-2-0 and the Bank held 6239 bags of different varieties of sugar as security. These bags were kept in godowns provided by defendant No. 2. The key of the lock of each godown was in the custody of the Bank. It was alleged that in December, 1949 under cover of an illegal seizure order issued by defendant No. 1 the Rationing Officer and the District Magistrate. Patna, got the locks of the godown broken open and forcibly and illegally removed 1818 bags of 27-D quality of sugar. The total quantity removed weighed about 5,000 maunds. No payment was made to the plaintiff Bank which held the bags of sugar as pledgee under the cash credit agreement. It is unnecesgary to refer to the other facts stated in the plaint except to mention that according to the plaintiff it was entitled to recover the sugar which had been seized illegally or to recover the price of that sugar as per schedule 2 of the plaint which the plaintiff would have got if the quantity of sugar which had been seized had been sold in the market on the material day. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for the retum of 1818 bags of 27-D quality sugar and alternatively, for recovery of Rs. 1.81.700-9-3 with interest by way of damages for illegal removal and detention of sugar or price thereof. Alternatively a decree for Rs. 93,910-10-9 was claimed against defendant No. 2 and the other defendants.3. The sult was resisted by defendant No. 1 on the wound that the seizure had been effected pursuant to lawful orders which had been made and that the sale proceeds of about 5000 mds. of sugar were included in the sum of Rs. 1,50,039-10-9 which was deposited in the treasury but which was later on attached under the orders of Certificate Officer, Patna, under the Public Demands Recovery Act on account of arrears of sugar cess amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs due from the Bhita Sugar Factory with which defendant No. 2 had entered into an arrangement pursuant to which the entire quantity of sugar including 5000 maunds which had been seized had come into possession of defendant No. 2. The other defendant also resisted the suit on various grounds. A number of issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. We may only mention issue No. 6 (a) which will be material for determination of the points which we have been called upon to decidethe sugar seized by the Government in possession of the Bank as a pledgee at the time of the seizure and have the rights of the Bank as such pledgee been deternined by the seizure in question?"4. The trial Court held that the order of seizure in respect of the stock of sugar was valid. It was further held that the plaintiffs right as a pledgee could not be extinguished by seizure of the sugar in its possession and though the attachment order of the Certificate Officer was legal and binding on defendant No. 2 it was not binding on the Bank (plaintiff) and it could be effective only in respect of that portion of the price which was not necessary for the liquidation of the does of the plaintiff from defendant No. 2.A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 only for Rs. 93910-10-9 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation: Defendant No. 1 (State of Bihar) filed an appeal to the High Court. The High Court was of the view that in the presence of file finding that the plaintiff had not been wrongfully deprived at the sugar on account if the lawful seizure or its price owing to the certificate proceedings started by the Cane Commissioner the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree against the State. But it was entitled to a decree against defendant No. 2 and the other defendants. Consequently a decree against defendant No. 1 was set aside and instead a decree was granted against the other defendants.

Reasoning:
7. In our judgment the High Court is in error in considering that the rights of the pawnee who had parted with money in favour of the pawnor on the security of the goods can be defeated by the goods being lawfully seized by the Government and the money beging made available to other creditors of the pawnor without the claim of the pawnee being fully satisfied. The pawnee has special property and a lien which is not of ordinary nature on the goods and so long as his clam is not satisfied no other creditor of the pawnor has any right to take away the goods or its price. After the goods had been seized by the Government it was bound to pay the amount due to the plaintiff and the balance could have been made available to satisfy the claim of other creditors of the pawnor. But by a mere act of lawful seizure the Government could not deprive the plaintiff at the amount which was secured by the pledge of the goods to it. As the act of the Government resulted in deprivation of the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled it was bound to reimburse the plaintiff for such amount which the plaintiff in ordinary course would have realized by sale of the goods pledged with it on the pawnor making a default inn payment of debt.8. The approach of the trial Court was unexceptionable. The Plaintiffs right as a pawnee could not be extinguished by the seizure of the goods in its possession inasmuch as the pledge of the goods was not meant to replace the liability under the cash credit agreement. It was intended to give the plaintiff a primary right to sell the goods in satisfaction of the liability of the pawnor. The Cane Commissioner who was an unsecured creditor could not have any higher rights than the pawnor and was entitled only to the surplus money after satisfaction of the plaintiffsthe proceeds of such sale are less than the amount due in respect of the debt or promise, the pawnor is still liable to pay the balance. If the proceeds of the sale are greater than the amount so due, the pawnee shall pay over the surplus to the pawnor." Section 180 is to the effect that if a third person wrongfully deprives the bailee of the use of the possession of the goods bailed or does him any injury the bailee is entitled to use such remedies as the owner might have used in the like case it no bailment had been made and either the bailor or the bailee may bring a suit against a third person for such deprivation or injury. According to Section 181 whatever is obtained by way of relief or compensation in any such suit shall, as between the bailor and bailee, be dealt with according to their respective interests. Relying on the above two sections the High Court came to the conclusion that a pawnee has merely the possession of the goods coupled with a power to sell them on default by the pawnor but the latter retains the ownership subject to a lien to the extent of the debt enforceable by exercise the power of sale. In the present case the sugar had been seized and then sold. The sale proceeds would have been available to defendants 2 to 5 subject to the claim of the plaintiff against them but it ceased to have any lien on the pledged property or the sale proceeds against any third party including the State as soon as it was legally deprived of the possession of the pledged goods.