SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE Plaintiff is a public limited company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the suit has been instituted through Shri O. P. Srivastava, Director, who has been authorised to institute the suit through board Resolution dated 30. 6. 1999. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that prior to 1980, the fisheries in India depended mainly on imported trawlers but in 1980, the Government of India initiated a ten year programme for promotion of indigenous construction of trawlers. The fishing company was to pay the initial seed money equivalent to 5% of the price of the trawler leaving the balance to be met by loan and subsidy. The plaintiff was entrusted with building of trawlers in the name of different fishing trading companies through Shipping Development Fund Committee (SDFC ). A set of four agreements including a Tripartite Agreement between the builder, the buyer and the SDFC was executed in this behalf. ( 3 ) A builder like the plaintiff was required to invest fund for the said purpose and in furtherance of the agreement, bank guarantees had also to be furnished. It is towards this object that the plaintiff approached the defendant who requested for 15% margin money to be deposited as security. The plaintiff complied with the requirement and the bank guarantees to the tune of Rs. 10. 54 crore were issued by the defendants in this behalf in favour of the Shipping and credit Investment Corporation of India (SCICI ). The said bank guarantees were invoked but defendant No. 2 bank did not remit payment to the beneficiary since by December 1989, the bank guarantees had lapsed. This gave rise to arbitral proceedings between the defendants and SCICI which resulted in an award in favour of the defendants. The objections to the award are still pending. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that after the bank guarantees had lapsed in december 1989, the margin money was not refunded to the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 bank went on juggling with the plaintiff's account in its books. This resulted in lower interest being earned on the margin money in the form of a term deposit while the plaintiff was paying much higher rates of interest on the outstanding on various accounts where credit facilities had been extended to the plaintiff. 2 bank went on juggling with the plaintiff's account in its books. This resulted in lower interest being earned on the margin money in the form of a term deposit while the plaintiff was paying much higher rates of interest on the outstanding on various accounts where credit facilities had been extended to the plaintiff. It was only vide letter dated 20. 1. 1999, a unilateral demand was made for appropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,47,30,806. 85 out of the margin money of Rs. 1,60,39,180. 85 to the amounts due in the Bill Purchase and Foreign Letter of Credit accounts of the plaintiff with the defendant. This action is stated to have been done in exercise of the alleged rights of general lien and set off. It is this action which is sought to be challenged by the plaintiff on the ground that there is no such general lien under the provisions of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Contract Act ). This plea is stated to be based on the principle that once the margin money is given for securing of a particular facility of bank guarantee, the said amount cannot be utilised for adjustment of other dues. ( 5 ) IT is also the case of the plaintiff that if such adjustment has to take place, it could have been done soon after the bank guarantee had lapsed instead of debiting the loan amounts of the defendants with interest while the term deposit was in turn getting much lower rates of interest. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit only seeking a relief of declaration that the action of the defendants as reflected in the letter dated 20. 1. 1999 is void, arbitrary, malafide and expropriatory amounting to unjust enrichment and is violative of banking norms and thus cannot be binding on the plaintiff. ( 7 ) THE suit is resisted by the defendants. Preliminary objections have been taken on maintainability of the suit seeking only a relief of declaration. The authority of the person to institute the suit is also disputed. ( 7 ) THE suit is resisted by the defendants. Preliminary objections have been taken on maintainability of the suit seeking only a relief of declaration. The authority of the person to institute the suit is also disputed. On merits it is stated that the appropriation has taken place of the term deposit of the plaintiff given in the form of margin money for the bank guarantee, not in pursuance to any general lien but in lieu of specific lien credit by the plaintiff for enjoyment of various credit facilities. It is the case of defendant No. 2 bank that the plaintiff continued to acknowledge the liabilities in various loan accounts and at no time requested for any adjustment of the term deposit. The bank claims that there is no time limit fixed within which the bank is liable to adjust such term deposit. The interest earned on the term deposit was being credited to the current account of the plaintiff and was in turn also used thereafter to satisfy the interest repayment on the loan facilities. ( 8 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 2. 5. 2003: "1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable 2. Whether the suit has been instituted by a duly authorised person and the plaint is properly verified 3. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for filing the suit against the defendant 4. Whether the suit is bad for concealment of material facts by the plaintiff 5. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of Estoppel 6. Whether the defendant was not entitled to exercise the banker's right of general lien and set off against the margin money kept in term deposit 7. Whether the action of the bank in adopting the norm for appropriating the fixed deposit amount is tainted with the vice of undue/unjust enrichment 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief. " ( 9 ) THE plaintiff in support of its case examined, Shri O. P. Srivastava (PW-1), who has affirmed to the facts as stated in the plaint. The original Board resolution or any certified copy thereof was not produced or filed on record. The plaintiff only relied upon a photocopy of a copy of the Board Resolution filed along with the plaint. The original Board resolution or any certified copy thereof was not produced or filed on record. The plaintiff only relied upon a photocopy of a copy of the Board Resolution filed along with the plaint. In the process of cross-examination, the witness stated that the plaintiff had written letters for adjustment of the margin money after the bank guarantee had lapsed, though no such document was produced on record. The witness further stated that he could produce that document. The cross-examination was deferred to a subsequent date but no such document was ever produced. The witness does not dispute the outstandings in current account, over draft, bill purchase, foreign letters of credit facilities. The witness further admitted that in terms of the letter dated 13. 3. 1992 (exhibits d-3, D-4 and D-5) and 26. 7. 1994 (Exhibits D-6, D-7 and D-8), the plaintiff had authorised defendant No. 2 bank to adjust the margin money against the outstandings in different accounts. The witness also admitted that as per these letters there was no time limitation for defendant No. 2 bank to adjust the margin money against the outstanding. ( 10 ) THE defendants in support of their case examined Shri A. C. Kathuria (DW-1), who was working in the Connaught Circus Branch of the bank from September 1996 to March 1999. The said witness has supported the case of the defendants and has stated that the defendants paid interest on the margin money kept by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had four accounts with the bank " guarantee account, bill purchase account, bill receivable under letter of credit and current account. Credit facilities were availed of by the plaintiff in respect of these different accounts. The witness has affirmed to the letters of lien and set off executed by the plaintiff which are dated 13. 11. 1986 (Ex. D-14), 20. 2. 1987 (Ex. D- 15), 3. 7. 1987 (Ex. D-16), 18. 1. 1988 (Ex. D-11) and 8. 9. 1988 (Ex. D-17 ). The letters of lien, apart from, general lien authorised the defendant bank, at any time, without notice to combine or consolidate any of the plaintiff's accounts with the liability of the bank or set off or transfer of any amount or sums sent to the credit of anyone or more of such account in or towards satisfaction of any of the liabilities of the plaintiff in respect of the account. The witness states that since the plaintiff neglected to clear the amounts despite the acknowledgement letter executed by the plaintiff, the lien was exercised. The letters of acknowledgement are exhibited as Ex. D-3 to D-8. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid witness has also stated that at no time any request was made by the plaintiff for adjustment of the amount and since outstandings were not liquidated, the defendant bank was left with no option but to adjust the outsandings. ( 12 ) IN the cross-examination the said witness has stated that different rates of interest are charged on the deposited amount and a loan account and thus different rates became payable on the same. Other than this nothing really worthwhile has come out of the cross-examination. ( 13 ) I have heard learned counsels for the parties, who have taken me through the pleadings, documents and the evidence on record and on consideration of the matter, the findings on the issues are as under: issue No. 1: Whether the suit as framed is maintainable" ( 14 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration in respect of the adjustment of the amount by the defendant. It is not in dispute that the consequence of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit would be to benefit the plaintiff with the value of the claim which had been adjusted by the defendant. Only a fixed court fee of Rs. 200. 00 has been paid on a suit for declaration. ( 15 ) I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that such a suit for mere declaration would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the consequence of such declaration would be recovery of amount. The plaintiff cannot hide the relief of recovery under such a relief of declaration and the suit ought to have been filed for both declaration and recovery of amount on which ad valorem court fee was liable to be paid. ( 16 ) IN this behalf learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgement of the learned single Judge of this Court in M/s. Maharaji Educational trust and Anr. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. AIR 2006 Delhi 226. The factual matrix of the said case also related to a transation of a loan with a nationalised bank. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. AIR 2006 Delhi 226. The factual matrix of the said case also related to a transation of a loan with a nationalised bank. It was held that the plaintiff under the garb of relief for injunction simpliciter, in fact, was seeking injunction against recovery as well as enforcement of a concluded contract on which ad valorem court fee ought to have been paid. A suit simpliciter for declaration filed by the loanee regarding the repudiation of settlement which in its true intent sought to bind the bank with an earlier settlement and prevent recovery of amount was held as not maintainable. The relief of simpliciter declaration was held hardly as a composite or complete relief. Since further necessary relief required under section 34 of Specific Relief Act was not asked for, the suit was dismissed. The relevant provision reads as under: "34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interest to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. " ( 17 ) THE aforesaid judgement applies on all fours of the facts of the present case. The only difference being in the present suit the adjustment has already taken place and thus the consequential relief would be relief of recovery of amount. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel has also referred to the judgement of the learned single judge in Jaidev Sethi Vs. Maharaj Krishan Sethi AIR 2006 Jandk 1, of the Full bench in Subhash Chand Jain Vs. The Chairman, M. P. Electricity Board and Ors. AIR 2001 MP 88 Full Bench and of the learned single Judge in Virendra Kumar shukla Vs. UCO Bank and Anr. AIR 2006 Chhattisgarh 104, which are also to the same effect and thus do not require to be gone into detail. The Chairman, M. P. Electricity Board and Ors. AIR 2001 MP 88 Full Bench and of the learned single Judge in Virendra Kumar shukla Vs. UCO Bank and Anr. AIR 2006 Chhattisgarh 104, which are also to the same effect and thus do not require to be gone into detail. ( 19 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the suit for declaration is not maintainable. Issue No. 2: Whether the suit has been instituted by a duly authorised person and the plaint is properly verified" ( 20 ) IT is the obligation of the plaintiff to have proved the proper institution of the suit since the same was disputed. The plaint is signed and verified by mr. O. P. Srivastava and the suit was instituted by him in pursuance to the Board resolution dated 30. 6. 1999, a copy of which was filed as Annexure P-10 to the suit. The plaintiff failed to produce the original Board Resolution and the minutes book to prove the same. Learned counsel for the defendant points out that the alleged Board Resolution is in the following terms: "extract OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF M/s. EAST COAST BOAT BUILDERS AND engineers LIMITED HELD ON JUNE 30, 1999 AT 11. 30 A. M. AT 2, YASHWANT PLACE, chanakya PURI, NEW DELHI-110021 resolved THAT Mr. O. P. Srivastava, Director of the Company be and hereby authorised to sign and execute all the affidavit and relevant documents required in connection of filing suit against Bank of India for the damages, caused on account of renewal of the insurance policy and also for recovery of the amount of margin money adjusted by the Bank of India, towards the other liabilities. For East Coast Boat Builders and Engineers Ltd. Sd/- (DIRECTOR)" ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel states that even for the sake of argument if this Board resolution is examined, the same only authorised the institution of suit for recovery of amount of margin money and there is no other authorisation in the board Resolution. ( 22 ) IN my considered view, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving the issue. No Memorandum or Article of the Company has been filed on record in pursuance whereto there could be an authority with the designated person of the company to institute the suit. ( 22 ) IN my considered view, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving the issue. No Memorandum or Article of the Company has been filed on record in pursuance whereto there could be an authority with the designated person of the company to institute the suit. It is also not known whether Mr. O. P. Srivastava was the Director at the relevant time. Nothing has been placed on record in this regard. The Board Resolution stated to have been passed in favour of Shri O. P. Srivastava has also not been proved. ( 23 ) I am, thus, of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to prove the board Resolution that Mr. O. P. Srivastava was aurhorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit. The issue is answered against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for filing the suit against the defendant" ( 24 ) THE cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff on account of the action of the bank in adjusting the margin money against the loan outstandings of the plaintiff bank in pursuance to the lien letters given by the plaintiff. It cannot, thus, be said that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. The issue is, thus, answered in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 4: Whether the suit is bad for concealment of material facts by the plaintiff" ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant has not been able to point out any specific deliberate concealment of material fact on the part of the plaintiff, which would disentitle the plaintiff to claim relief entitled to. The issue is answered accordingly. Issue No. 5: Whether the suit is barred by the principles of Estoppel" ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant again has been unable to point out as to how principles of estoppel come into play in the present case to disentitle the plaintiff to institute the suit. The issue is answered accordingly. The issue is answered accordingly. Issue No. 5: Whether the suit is barred by the principles of Estoppel" ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant again has been unable to point out as to how principles of estoppel come into play in the present case to disentitle the plaintiff to institute the suit. The issue is answered accordingly. Issues 6 and 7: Whether the defendant was not entitled to exercise the banker's right of general lien and set off against the margin money kept in term deposit" whether the action of the bank in adopting the norm for appropriating the fixed deposit amount is tainted with the vice of undue/unjust enrichment" ( 27 ) THE evidence discussed above clearly shows that the margin money was given initially for the purposes of securing the bank guarantee facility. The bank guarantee lapsed by time and that was the stand of the defendant. The bank guarantee was never paid. In such a situation normally the plaintiff was entitled to release of the deposit made as margin money. ( 28 ) THE plaintiff, however, never demanded the margin money which was, in fact, kept in a term deposit. The benefit of interest on the term deposit accrued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff executed letters of specific lien for other facilities. Such letters of lien authorised the defendant bank to take necessary actions inter se the loan accounts and for adjustment of the amounts as also against the items in respect of which the lien was given. The margin money undisputedly was one such item admitted by PW-1 in its cross-examination. ( 29 ) THE principle of Section 171 of the Contract Act do not apply to the present case. The said provision reads as under: "171. general lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers.-Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other person have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect. " ( 30 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff did seek to contend that a general lien cannot be exercised in such a case by reference to the judgement of the Division bench in Punjab National Bank Vs. Arura Mal Durga Das and Anr. AIR 1960 Punjab 632. It was held that the Contract Act is not exhaustive of the entire law relating to contracts and it does not refer to banker's lien in respect of cash deposits. It was, thus, held that in such matters principles of English law, justice, equity and good conscience must be applied and unless the essential requisites of Sections 170 and 171 of the Contract Act are satisfied,. e. a relationship of creditor and debtor is established with mutual demand existing between them, it cannot be unilaterally exercised by the bank under a general lien. However, this case was of little assistance to the plaintiff since the plaintiff had created specific lien on the margin money in respect of the various lien facilities. ( 31 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgement of the Apex Court in Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 330 , which explained the concept of a banker's lien. It was held that by a mercantile system the bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments including FDRs deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business in absence of an agreement to the contrary and that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker. Banker has a right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer's debit balance. ( 32 ) IT has already been observed hereinabove that the evidence as discussed above clearly establishes the liability, as admitted by the plaintiff, in respect of other loan accounts and that such adjustment has been made in pursuance to the specific lien against the outstandings in the other loan accounts. The plaintiff does even dispute that there were outstanding s in the other loan accounts as discussed aforesaid. The plaintiff does even dispute that there were outstanding s in the other loan accounts as discussed aforesaid. ( 33 ) IN view of the aforesaid, there is also no question of any unjust enrichment or tainted action of the respondent bank, which was in pursuance to the specific authorisation. The issue is, thus, answered against the plaintiff. Issue No. 8: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief" ( 34 ) IN view of the findings in the issues arrived at, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is also without merit. The suit is dismissed with costs.