RAMPRASAD S/O PRABHUDAYAL MATHUR VAISHYA vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as a commission agent, did not have a lien over the goods since the agreement did not indicate a pledge. The Court established that an agent must possess the goods with the intention to create a lien, which was not the case here as the appellant voluntarily parted with possession without reserving his right. The Court decreed that the appellant was entitled to the principal amount and interest from the date of the suit until the date of the decree against the second respondent, while the decree against the State was set aside.