JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Third Respondent in Letter No. LVB/898/REC/GEN/02/2019-20 dated 12.06.2019 quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to release the jewels to the Petitioner after receipt of mortgage amount with interest with respect to the JDL Account Nos. A. No. 0665773000035883 and A. No. 0665773000040977.) Heard Mr. Gowthaman Sankaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Arunbabu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Petitioner had availed various credit facilities from the Third Respondent and the details of the same have been set out in the following self-explanatory tabular statement:- S.No. Credit Facility Date of Loan Amount Borrowed Date of Balance Outstanding Amount Due Security (i) Business Loan 30.08.2016 Rs.1,00,00,000/- 06.11.2019 Rs.1,17,11,542/- Mortgage of property comprising of land and building at Manjaputhur Village (ii) Jewel Loan – I 06.04.2018 Rs.3,80,000/- 06.11.2019 Rs.4,45,334/- Pledge of 198.000 grams of gold (jewel ornaments) (iii) Jewel Loan – II 09.08.2018 Rs.2,35,000/- 09.10.2019 Rs.2,63,470/- Pledge of 124.800 grams of gold (jewel ornaments} (iv) Goods Loan – I 16.05.2017 Rs.21,00,000/- 16.10.2019 Rs.18,27,601/- Pledge of paddy bags (v) Goods Loan - II 20.03.2017 Rs.40,00,000/- 20.10.2019 Rs.15,55,967/- Pledge of paddy bags (vi) Goods Loan - III 21.01.2017 Rs.35,00,000/- 21.10.2019 Rs.4,85,005/- Pledge of paddy bags Total Rs. 1,62,88,919/- Since the Petitioner committed default in repayment of the aforesaid Business Loan, it had been classified as Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as 'NPA' for short) on 28.02.2019 and the Second Respondent as Authorised Officer had issued a Demand Notice dated 26.04.2019 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act' for short) to the Petitioner for the same. At that stage, the Petitioner by letter dated 06.06.2019 complained to the First and Second Respondents that the Third Respondent was not permitting him to redeem the jewels that had been pledged as security for the aforesaid Jewel Loans – I & II despite his willingness to discharge that liability by paying interest, and was insisting on clearing that Business Loan also which he could not repay immediately on account of drought and business losses. The Second and Third Respondents sent reply notices dated 12.06.2019 to the Petitioner informing that the jewels pledged for the aforesaid Jewel Loans – I & II cannot be released until the closure of that Business Loan since the jewels are having indirect liability to the Business Loan facility. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the said reply notice dated 12.06.2019 and for consequential direction to the Respondents to release the jewels to the Petitioner after receipt of the amount due with interest in respect the aforesaid Jewel Loans – I & II. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.09.2019, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought for interim injunction of auction of the pledged jewels in respect of Jewel Loan – I that had been fixed on 07.09.2019. In response to the specific query then raised by this Court as to whether the petitioner is willing to remit the dues under that jewel loan without prejudice to his contentions in the Writ Petition, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is not in a position to make such payment. In view of the same, it was ordered that the auction may proceed but custody of the pledged jewels shall not be parted to the purchaser until further orders. However, it has been informed on the subsequent hearing that as there were no bidders, the auction had not proceeded as scheduled on that day. 4. The Second Respondent has filed Counter-Affidavit dated 28.09.2019 justifying the refusal to release the pledged jewels in the event of the Petitioner discharging the entire amounts due under the aforesaid Jewel Loans – I & II till the other liabilities, viz., the aforesaid Business Loan and the Goods Loans – I, II & III owed by the Petitioner are repaid fully, relying on the Banker’s Right of General Lien, which has been statutorily recognized in Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In order to buttress that on the declaration of the aforesaid Business Loan as NPA, the other credit facilities, viz., Jewel Loans - I & II and Goods Loans – I, II & III, also have to be treated as NPA, clause 2.2.2(i) of the Master Circular – Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning and other related matters – UCBs dated 01.07.2015 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, has been cited, which is extracted below:- “In respect of a borrower having more than one facility with a bank, all the facilities granted by the bank will have to treated as NPA and not the particular facility or part thereof which has become irregular.” It is needless to recapitulate here that such directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India have statutory flavour under Sections 21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Corporation of Bank –vs- D.M.Gowda [ (1994) 5 SCC 213 ]. 5. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which reads as follows:- “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 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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Syndicate Bank –vs- Vijay Kumar [ (1992) 2 SCC 330 ] has explained the scope and meaning of Banker’s Right of General Lien as follows:- “6. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol.20, p. 552, para 695, lien is defined as follows: Lien is in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. In this primary sense it is given by law and not by contract.” In Chalmers on Bills of Exchange, 13th Edn., p. 91, the meaning of `Banker's lien’ is given as follows: “A banker's lien on negotiable securities has been judicially defined as `an implied pledge’. In this primary sense it is given by law and not by contract.” In Chalmers on Bills of Exchange, 13th Edn., p. 91, the meaning of `Banker's lien’ is given as follows: “A banker's lien on negotiable securities has been judicially defined as `an implied pledge’. A banker has, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, a lien on all bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business in respect of any balance that may be due from such customer." In Chitty on Contract, 26th Edn., p. 389, para 3032 the Banker's lien is explained as under: “Extent of lien. - By mercantile custom the banker has a general lien over all forms of commercial paper deposited by or on behalf of a customer in the ordinary course of banking business. The custom does not extend to valuables lodged for the purpose of safe custody and may in any event be displaced by either an express contract or circumstances which show an implied agreement inconsistent with the lien .... …. The lien is applicable to negotiable instruments which are remitted to the banker from the customer for the purpose of collection. When collection has been made the proceeds may be used by the banker in reduction of the customer's debit balance unless otherwise earmarked.” (emphasis supplied) In Paget's Law of Banking, 8th Edn., p. 498 a passage reads as under: “The Banker’s Lien Apart from any specific security, the banker can look to his general lien as a protection against loss on loan or overdraft or other credit facility. The general lien of bankers is part of law merchant and judicially recognized as such.” In Brandao v. Barnett, (1846)12 Cl & Fin 787, it was stated as under: “Bankers, most undoubtedly, have a general lien on all securities deposited with them, as bankers, by a customer, unless there be an express contract, or circumstances that show an implied contract, inconsistent with lien.” The above passages go to show that by mercantile system the Bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognized and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a Banker has a general lien over such securities or bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business and 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.” In view of this incontrovertible legal position, as rightly contended by the Second and Third Respondents, their entitlement to retain custody of the jewels pledged by the Petitioner as security for the aforesaid Jewel Loans till the discharge of all the other liabilities owed by him to them is absolutely justified and no exception could be taken to that prudent decision. 6. It is lastly contended on behalf the Petitioner that since the Business Loan is adequately secured by the mortgaged property and the Goods Loans – I, II & III are also secured by the pledge of paddy bags, there is no necessity for the Second and Third Respondents to retain custody of the jewels pledged for the aforesaid Jewel Loans – I & II when that liability gets discharged. Refuting that contention, it is befittingly explained by the Second and Third Respondents that the aggregate sum due for all those loans has exceeded Rs.1,60,05,173/-, while the present value of the mortgaged property is only Rs.1,02,00,000/- which would not suffice, and that releasing other available securities would jeopardize their interests in effectively recovering the entire amount of debt due from the Petitioner. It is equally settled in law that the Writ Court ought to be loathe to dislodge the wisdom of the Commercial Banker by its opinion in such matters involving financial ramifications. It is equally settled in law that the Writ Court ought to be loathe to dislodge the wisdom of the Commercial Banker by its opinion in such matters involving financial ramifications. In any event, the Petitioner has not remitted the entire amounts due under the aforesaid Jewel Loans – I & II till date, which itself exposes that the claim made by the Petitioner for redeeming those pledged jewels, lacks bonafides. 7. Before concluding, it would be apt to quote the relevant passage from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank –vs- Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd.,[ (2010) 8 SCC 129 ], which squarely applies to the fact situation in this case, and reads as follows:- “25. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Bank is a trustee of the public funds and it cannot compromise the public interests for benefiting private individuals and that those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract. Any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods.” 8. In fine, the Writ Petition sans any merits, is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.