S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent bank in releasing the FDR amounts belonging to the Petitioner Company and further the action of the Respondent Bank in permitting the unauthorized borrowings as illegal and ultra vires of the powers of the respondent and as such not binding on the petitioner Company and for a consequential direction to pay the fixed deposit amounts to the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner is a Chit Fund company and the Petitioners 2 and 3 are the shareholders of the Company. It is stated that in the course of its business the Petitioner company made two fixed deposits with the following details:- (a) FDR No. 151857/12/91, dated 6-6-1991 forrs. 1,90,000/- (b) FDR No. 151900/34, dated 1-7-1991 for rs. 6,856-80 according to the petitioners, the Respondent- bank has been instructed from time to time that the fixed deposits should not be allowed to be encashed by the Executive Director, who was authorised to carry on the business of the Company. But, according to the petitioner, contrary to these express instructions, the Respondent allowed the executive Director to pledge those fixed deposits against the overdraft account and finally did not pay the amount of fixed deposits to the Petitioner Company and such action or inaction of the Respondent Bank is illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence sought for the relief. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the light of the specific instructions issued by the Petitioner company and the Managing Director not to allow the Executive Director to encash the fixed deposits, the Respondent Bank should not allow the Executive Director either to encash or even to encumber those fixed deposits. Therefore, the action of the bank in allowing the Executive Director to pledge or encumber those fixed deposits with reference to the borrowal by him is contrary to the instructions and therefore, the petitioner company is entitled for recovery of the fixed deposit amounts. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad Commercials v. Indian Bank, air 1991 SC 247 . In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad Commercials v. Indian Bank, air 1991 SC 247 . ( 4 ) A counter has been filed by the respondent Bank admitting that the respondent Bank was having two fixed deposits and also about the instructions in connection with said deposits. But, however, in the counter, it is stated that the Executive director filed a copy of the agreement said to have been executed between the Managing director and the Executive Director under which the Executive Director was empowered to borrow from the Bank or from, any other source and the liability thereon rests on the Company. In the light of the said agreement, the Respondent Bank permitted the Executive Director to borrow or avail the overdraft facility in respect of the Current Account of the Company with c. A/c. No. 1914. It is also stated that the bank, towards the overdraft account liability, adjusted the Fixed Deposit amounts and after that adjustment, an amount of rs. 68,185-16 paise was credited to the account of the Petitioner Company and the same is available in the petitioner account for withdrawal for which the Respondent bank has no objection, which in fact was ordered to be withdrawn by way of an interim order of this Court. ( 5 ) AT the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Respondent also stated that even if the Fixed Deposits are not given as a security to the liability on account of the overdraft facility provided to the petitioner Company by the Respondent Bank, still as the borrowals were on behalf of the petitioner Company, the bank has got lien over the said fixed deposits. Therefore, the bank was within its right in adjusting the funds of the fixed deposits towards the liability of the petitioner company and in doing so, the Respondent did not contravene any of the instructions of the petitioner. Therefore, the bank was within its right in adjusting the funds of the fixed deposits towards the liability of the petitioner company and in doing so, the Respondent did not contravene any of the instructions of the petitioner. The learned Counsel also contended that the issue as to the lien of the Banks over the fixed deposits was considered by a Division bench of this Court in the case of canara Bank v. Taraka Prabhu Publishers, air 1991 AP 258 , wherein it was upheld the bank s contention that the Bank has got a lien even in terms of Section 171 of the indian Contract Act, 1872. The learned counsel also contended that the dispute in the present case is a disputed question of fact as to the entitlement of the Executive director of the petitioner Company to boirow from the banks by pledging the fixed deposits as a security as well as the right of the bank over the fixed deposits. Under similar circumstances it was held by the Apex Court in DLF Housing Const. Limited v. Delhi municipality, 1976 SC 386, that the proper course is only to file a civil suit and Article 226 is not a remedy. Therefore, the learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 6 ) FROM the above rival contentions, the issue to be considered is whether the petitioner Company is entitled for recovery of the amounts covered by the fixed deposits. ( 7 ) THE facts are not in dispute as to the deposit of fixed deposits and also further instructions issued to the bank that the fixed deposits should not be allowed to be encashed. But, however, the bank relied upon an agreement, said to have been executed between the Managing Director and the Executive Director of the Petitioner company, under which, a reference was made to the fixed deposits, which were directed to be renewed, as and when matured till further such period so to be co-terminus with the finalization of the account of the company and would be withdrawn jointly. As per Clause 8 of the said agreement, the executive Director was empowered to borrow from Bank and or from other sources, and the liability thereof rests on the company. According to the Respondent bank in terms of the said agreement, the bank provided the overdraft facility to the executive Director. As per Clause 8 of the said agreement, the executive Director was empowered to borrow from Bank and or from other sources, and the liability thereof rests on the company. According to the Respondent bank in terms of the said agreement, the bank provided the overdraft facility to the executive Director. For allowing such overdraft Facility, the Executive Director offered the present fixed deposits as a security, which was accepted by the Bank. In fact, towards the overdraft facility or the amounts borrowed by the Executive director on behalf of the petitioner company, the amounts in the fixed deposits were adjusted and the balance amount was credited to the account of the petitioner company itself. But, the grievance of the petitioner Company is that when there are specific instructions not to allow the executive Director to encash the fixed deposits, the Executive Director does not have the power to pledge or encumber those fixed deposits. The contention of the respondent bank, on the other hand, is that in terms of the agreement, the Executive director was empowered to borrow. Therefore, the Petitioner Company itself permitted the borrowal by the Executive director. Incidentally, the fixed deposits were given as a security. In fact, according to the Respondent bank there are no specific instructions not to allow the fixed deposits to be given as security. In addition, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that even under the provisions of Section 171 of the Indian contract Act, 1872 the bank has got a lien towards the liability on any fixed deposits lying with the bank. Even exercising such power, the bank has got a right to adjust the liability from out of the funds of the fixed deposits and in fact that is what the bank has done. Therefore, the Petitioner Company is not entitled to seek any direction to pay the amount of fixed deposits ignoring the liability of the Company. In fact, the Bank adjusted towards the liability of the Company from out of the amounts of the fixed deposits. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad commercials v. Indian Bank (supra) that is a case where the funds of the Petitioner company were transferred to another account without the consent or authorization of the petitioner Company therein. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad commercials v. Indian Bank (supra) that is a case where the funds of the Petitioner company were transferred to another account without the consent or authorization of the petitioner Company therein. In such circumstances the Apex Court held that there are no disputed facts and the bank is liable to pay back the amount transferred from the petitioners account. That is not the situation in the present case. In fact, the fixed deposit amounts were adjusted towards the liability of the Petitioner Company itself. , which liability is not at all disputed by the Petitioner company. ( 8 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In addition, even in the light of the judgment referred to earlier, relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.