JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. The petitioners seek a direction upon the Bank to refund a sum of Rs. 56.25 lakhs which the petitioners made over to the Bank while proposing on one time settlement. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners refers to the proposal for one time settlement. He submits that, the proposal mooted by the petitioners was premised upon the request of the petitioners to enter into a one-time settlement. The petitioner tendered a sum of Rs. 56.25 lakhs to the Bank on the basis of the one-time settlement. The petitioners categorically stated that, in the event, the petitioners' proposal was not accepted by the Bank, then, the sum was required to be refunded. The amount should be held by the bank in a "No Lien Account" pending the decision of the Bank to enter into the one time settlement. The Bank not having entered into the one time settlement, the Bank had no business to retain the sum of Rs. 56.25 lakhs of the petitioners. The Bank was obliged to refund the sum. He relies upon Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 and submits that, the right of lien cannot be exercised by the Bank on such subject. In support of his contentions, he relies upon a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) reported at (Laxmi Grih Udyog & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2007) AIR M.P. 114). He submits that, there are recovery proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the sense that proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as well as proceedings under Section 171 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are pending. Therefore, according to him, the Bank ought to have refunded the sum of Rs. 56.25 lakhs to the petitioners. 3. The Bank is represented. 4. Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 deals with the right of lien of Banker. Section 171 of the Act of 1872 is as follows: - "171. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers. 56.25 lakhs to the petitioners. 3. The Bank is represented. 4. Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 deals with the right of lien of Banker. Section 171 of the Act of 1872 is as follows: - "171. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers. Bankers, factors, wharfinders, 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 persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect." 5. Section 171 of the Act of 1872 allows a banker to exercise bankers' lien in respect of properties, which came within its possession in its usual course of business. In the present case, the Bank was made over a sum of Rs. 56.25 lakhs along with a proposal for settlement. The sum of Rs. 56.25 lakhs came into possession of the Bank in its usual course of business. The jural relationship between the parties are not disputed. The Bank having come into the possession of Rs. 56.25 lakhs in its usual course of business, it is entitled to exercise bankers' lien over the sum. In the facts of the present case, it has done so. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Bank held the amount tendered with the proposal for settlement in a no lien account. A banker has a right of lien unless there is a contract to the contrary. It is for the petitioner to establish that there was a contract for waiver of the right of lien for the bank to be demanded of such right. The nature of adjustment that the bank did with the sum of Rs. 56.25 lakhs need not be entered into by a Writ Court as, the same is the subject matter of proceedings under Section 19 of the Act of 1993. 6. Laxmi Grih Udyog & Anr. (supra) deals with a case where, a settlement proposal was made. The provisions of Section 171 of the Act of 1982 not considered therein. 7. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. 8. W.P. No.1675 (W) of 2019 is dismissed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Laxmi Grih Udyog & Anr. (supra) deals with a case where, a settlement proposal was made. The provisions of Section 171 of the Act of 1982 not considered therein. 7. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. 8. W.P. No.1675 (W) of 2019 is dismissed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.