Statue governing bailmentbailees particular lienWhere the bailee has, in accordance with the purpose of the bailment, rendered any service involving the exercise of labour or skill in respect of the goods bailed, he has, in absence of a contract to the contrary, a right to retain such goods until he receives due remuneration for the services he has rendered in respect of them.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Sec. 170 Indian Contract Act, 1872.]

This section expresses, the 'Common Law principle that if a man has an article delivered to him, on the improvement of which he has to bestow trouble and expense, he has a right to detain it, until his demand is paid'[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Bevan v Waters [1824-34] AII ER Rep 304]

LienLien in its basic sense means a right in which one manretains which is rightfully and continuously in his possession belonging to another, until the present and accrued claims of the person in possession are satisfied. In this basic sense it is given by law and not by contract[footnoteRef:3].The possession of the goods by the person claiming the right of lien is anterior to its exercise. If the said person is not in possession then the exercise of the right is not possible[footnoteRef:4]. [3: Halsbury's Laws of England, 'Lien', fourth edn, vol 28, para 502] [4: Syndicate Bank v DavendraKarkeraAIR 1994 Kant 1]

The lien never arises unless the bailee has a right to continuing possession of the goods, so that if the bailor has the right to remove the goods from time-to-time,there is no lien, in the absence of an express agreement that the goods shall remain 'in pawn' despite temporary removal by the bailor.The extent of lienThe extent of bailee's lien is in terms of services involving the rendering of labour or skillby an employee for the goods bailed. The services given for the purposes of lien must be limited to the labour or skill spent by the bailor over the goods bailed; the lien does not deal with any other kind of service. Thelabour and skill must have been spent, in accordance with the purpose of the bailment,to improve the goods bailed, and the lien applies only to goods over which the bailee has bestowed his labour and expense, and not to other goods.[footnoteRef:5] Nor does any lien attach to goods bailed to a person for the purpose of his working with it, and not upon it.[footnoteRef:6] Mere making arrangement for storage of goods in a godown for payment would not attract this provision since no improvement in the goods takes place, nor is any labour or skill exercised in respect of such goods[footnoteRef:7]. [5: KalloomalTapeshwari Prasad & Co v Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd AIR 1990 All 214] [6: Steadman v Hockley (1846) 15 M&W 553] [7: KalloomalTapeshwari Prasad & Co v Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd AIR 1990 All 214]

General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokersBankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a high court and policy brokers may, in the absence of 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.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Sec.171, Indian Contract Act 1872.]

This section specifies the people who are entitled to general lien for security of general balance of account unless it is excluded by specific contract. These are bankers, factors, warfingers, attorneys and policy brokers. No other person enjoys a general lien unless specified in the contract.general lienA general lien is the right to retain the property of another for a general balance of accounts; but a particular lien is a right to retain it only for a charge on account of labour employed or expenses bestowed upon the identical property detained.It confers on the person who holds the lien the right to retain the goods until payment is made to him, but it does not gives the person entitled to the lien the right of sale to secure the debt or indemnity. It merely creates a right to retain the goods, and does not create a right like a pledgee has.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Alliance Bank of Simla Ltd v GhamandiLal-JainiLalAIR 1927 Lah 408.]

conclusionThe hypothesis taken by the researcher is proved correct it can be seen through the various chapters that the bailment is possible even without a contract, the judgments of the Indian courts also are of the same opinion as explained above with the help of case laws and further there are statutes that help to prove it,Section170 talks of lien and 171 talks of bailment where having a contract in advance is not necessary it specifies the person who are entitled to bailment , it talks of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorney.

Bibliography

CasesAlliance Bank of Simla Ltd v Ghamandi Lal-Jaini Lal AIR 1927 Lah 40810Bevan v Waters [1824-34] AII ER Rep 3048China Pacific S v Food Corpn of India (The Winson) [1982] AC 939, [1981] 3 All ER 6885Kalloomal Tapeshwari Prasad & Co v Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd AIR 1990 All 2149KH Enterprises v Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324, [1994] 2 All ER 250 (PC)6Mitchel v London Borough of Ealing [1978] 2 All ER 779.5State of Gujarat v Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam[1967] 3 SCR 938, AIR 1967 SC 1885, (1968) 1 SCJ 2737Steadman v Hockley (1846) 15 M&W 5539Syndicate Bank v Davendra Karkera AIR 1994 Kant 18Trustees of the Port of Bombay v Premier Automobiles LtdAIR 1981 SC 1982, (1981) 1 SCC 2286booksHalsbury's Laws of England, 'Bailment', fourth edn, reissue, vol 27Halsbury's Laws of England, 'Lien', fourth edn, vol 288statuteIndian Contract Act,1872

List of abbreviation

AIR. All Indian ReporterEdn. .. Editionetc. etcetraIbid ibidemI.C.A Indian contract act, 1872 P . PageV. Versusvol. .. volumeSec. sectionSCC Supreme Court CasesSC