Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
C. M. A. No. 530 and Suit No. 135 of 1975, decided on 14th May 1975.
-----S. 170‑Lien‑Person ‑doing work on goods delivered to him at different times under an entire contract, such as to establish a lien-- Entitled to such lien on all goods dealt with under contract.
Where a person does work on goods delivered to him under an entire contract, with reference to goods delivered at different times, such as to establish a lien, he is entitled to that lien on all goods dealt with under that contract.
Miller v. Nasmyth's Patent Press Co. Ltd. I L R 8 Cal. 312 ref.
----S. 170‑Lien‑Lien once established‑Immaterial that goods sought to be retained by bailee for services rendered wholly disproportionate to remuneration due.
‑‑ S. 170‑Lien‑No right of continuing possession‑No right of lien.
‑‑ S. 170‑Lien‑Plaintiffs under contract with defendants uncondi tionally bound to forward and consign stock of goods received by them to the ultimate consignee according to defendant's directions -Plaintiffs also required to employ Chowkidar to perform Watch and Ward duties but with written approval of defendants‑Plaintiffs found to have delivered goods in their possession to local administration and others according to directions of defendants‑Defendants also fully authorised to transfer stock of goods to any other contractor --Plaintiffs, in circumstances, held, not in continuing possession of goods and accordingly had no lien on goods.
In the present case the plaintiffs under their contract with the Director- General, Food were unconditionally bound to forward and consign to the ultimate consignee the stock of rice received by the plaintiffs in accordance with the directions of the Director‑General or his representative. The plaintiffs were further required to employ Chowkidar to perform Watch and Ward duties but with the written approval of the Director‑General of Food or his representative. The plaintiffs were bound to deliver rice in their possession to the local administration or any agency or person as directed by the Director -General Food. The Director‑General Food had the full authority to transfer the stock of food‑grains to any other contractor. These clauses show adequately that the plaintiffs were under the contract not in continuing possession of the rice and, accordingly, they had no lien on the same.
Forth v. Simpson 13 Q B 680 and Matton v. Car Maintenance Co. Ltd. (1915) 1 Ch. 621 ref.
‑‑ S. 170‑Lien‑Clause of agreement relating to payment referring to submission by plaintiffs of claim for payment for actual services per formed under contract at rate specified in contract and bills to be approved and certified by representatives of defendants‑Plaintiffs, held, not, in circumstances, entitled to their dues for services rendered from time to time until goods had been delivered.
In the contract the clause relating to the payment refers to the submission by the plaintiffs' claim for payment for actual services performed by them under the contract at the rate specified in the Schedule appended to the contract. The bills under the contract are to be approved and certi fied by the representative of the Director‑General, Food. The plaintiffs did not therefore become entitled to their dues for services rendered from time to time until the rice in respect of which the services were rendered had been delivered or shipped.
Miller v. Nasmyth's Patent Press Co. Ltd. I L R 8 Cal. 312 distinguished.
‑ S. 170‑Lien‑Claim put forward for more than right amount and exaggerated‑Such circumstance, by itself, would not result in loss of lien.
‑--O. XXXIX, r. 1‑Injunction, temporary‑Plaintiffs failing to establish either balance of convenience in their favour or irreparable loss to them in case of refusal to grant injunction‑Plaintiffs' claim being for lien in respect of amount claimed or to furnish security to meet their claim at conclusion of trial no practical benefit, held, would accrue to them if defendants directed to furnish bank guarantee instead of deposit in cash‑Defendants, in circumstances, directed to furnish bank guarantee of a specified amount to cover plaintiffs' claim, further interest, and costs.
Fazle Ghani Khan and Abdul Matin for Plaintiff:
J. H. Rehmatullah for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3.
Dates of hearing: 2nd, 6th and 17th May 1975.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer