{"id":105422,"date":"2000-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000"},"modified":"2017-06-27T21:40:30","modified_gmt":"2017-06-27T16:10:30","slug":"himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000","title":{"rendered":"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sethi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 441  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE FINANCIAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/10\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas &amp; R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    The\t only point in controversy in the present appeal  is<br \/>\nas  to\twhether\t the respondent-loanee is also\tentitled  to<br \/>\ninterest  at  the rate of 13% on the amount to\tbe  refunded<br \/>\nwhich  was admittedly realised by the sale of his industrial<br \/>\nunit, in excess of his liability in a loan transaction.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Vide  the  impugned\t judgment in this appeal,  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  has directed the refund of the excess amount, if any,<br \/>\nafter  calculations along with interest at the rate of\t13%,<br \/>\nthe  rate on which the Corporation is stated to have charged<br \/>\nthe respondents on the amount of loan advanced to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on<br \/>\nhis   request\tthe   appellant-Corporation  sanctioned\t  on<br \/>\n18.12.1983  a term loan of Rs.15 lacs against the total cost<br \/>\nof the Project of the respondent for construction of a hotel<br \/>\nunit.\tThe  appellant-Corporation  had also  sanctioned  an<br \/>\nadditional  loan  of  Rs.5.50 lacs on 6.8.1986.\t  The  total<br \/>\nsanctioned  loan  of  Rs.20.50\tlacs was  dispersed  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  during  the period from 6.7.1984  to  1.5.1987.<br \/>\nThe  respondents  committed defaults in the payment  of\t the<br \/>\nloan  amount with the result that the  appellant-corporation<br \/>\ntook  over  the possession of the hotel under Section 29  of<br \/>\nthe  State  Financial  Corporations Act,  1951\t(hereinafter<br \/>\ncalled\t&#8220;the  Act&#8221;).   Notices for sale of  the\t hotel\twere<br \/>\nadvertised  in the Newspapers.\tFour parties negotiated\t the<br \/>\nsale\tof   the   assets   of\t  the\thotel\t with\t the<br \/>\nappellant-corporation.\t The  offer of M\/s.Pradeep  Kapur  &amp;<br \/>\nAssociates was accepted whereafter agreement of purchase was<br \/>\nmade  between  the  Corporation and the\t purchaser  on\t13th<br \/>\nMarch,\t1993.\tThe respondents challenged the sale  through<br \/>\nWrit  Petition\tNo.515 of 1993.\t During the pendency of\t the<br \/>\nwrit petition it was submitted that one Rana Iqbal Singh was<br \/>\nprepared to purchase the property for Rs.60 lacs in case the<br \/>\nvacant\tpossession  was delivered to him.  Such a  statement<br \/>\nmade  in  the court was recorded in the proceedings  of\t the<br \/>\ncourt dated 23rd December, 1993.  In view of the offer of 60<br \/>\nlacs  as price of the unit, the Corporation presumably could<br \/>\nnot  disperse  the excess amount out of the amount  received<br \/>\nfrom M\/s.Pradeep Kapur &amp; Associates to the respondents.\t The<br \/>\nexcess\tamount\twas  put  in  the  Current  Account  of\t the<br \/>\ncorporation so that it could be dispersed immediately to the<br \/>\nrespondents  as\t per  situation arising in  the\t case.\t The<br \/>\nCorporation  did  not earn any interest on that amount.\t  As<br \/>\nper  the orders of the High Court dated 23rd December, 1993,<br \/>\nthe   appellant-corporation  claims  to\t  have\tarranged   a<br \/>\nnegotiation  and  called  the said Rana Iqbal Singh  in\t its<br \/>\noffice\ton  16.2.1994.\t The counsel  of  earlier  purchaser<br \/>\nM\/s.Pradeep Kapur &amp; Associates submitted a letter along with<br \/>\nan  application\t which was presented before the\t High  Court<br \/>\npraying therein for recalling the order dated 23rd December,<br \/>\n1993  and  for stay of consideration of the offer  of  third<br \/>\nparty,\tnamely,\t Rana Iqbal Singh.  The said application  of<br \/>\nthe  earlier  purchaser was not decided by the\tHigh  Court.<br \/>\nHowever, the writ petition No.515 of 1993 was disposed of on<br \/>\n3rd January, 1997 vide the order impugned in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\tis  submitted on behalf of the corporation that\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court was not justified in granting the interest on the<br \/>\nexcess\tamount which was to be payable, upon calculation, to<br \/>\nthe  respondents.  The appellant- corporation claims to have<br \/>\nnot  faulted in refunding the excess amount.  The delay\t was<br \/>\noccasioned  on account of the pendency of the writ  petition<br \/>\nfiled  by the respondents.  As the appellant-corporation did<br \/>\nnot earn any profit on the excess amount, it was not obliged<br \/>\nto  pay\t any  interest.\t  The corporation,  subject  to\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of the Act, can carry on and transact any of the<br \/>\nbusiness  specified  in\t Section 25 of the  Act.   The\tsaid<br \/>\nsection\t authorises  the  corporation  to  grant  loans\t  or<br \/>\nadvances  to  the  industrial  concerns on  such  terms\t and<br \/>\nconditions  as may be agreed to.  The corporation deals with<br \/>\npublic money for public benefit.  Default in payments of the<br \/>\nloans  and  advances thus, ultimately affects the public  at<br \/>\nlarge.\t An  obligation is cast upon the loanee to pay\tback<br \/>\nthe  amount  of the loan or advance received under the\tAct.<br \/>\nIn  case of failure to make the payment, the corporation  is<br \/>\nexpected  to  adopt  an\t approach which\t has  to  be  public<br \/>\noriented  rendering a helping hand to the loanee to come out<br \/>\nof  the\t financial losses and constrains if any but  without<br \/>\ncausing\t any loss to the corporation.  To protect the public<br \/>\ninterest, the Act provides a mechanism for recovery of loan.<br \/>\nSection\t 29  of the Act authorises the corporation  to\ttake<br \/>\nover  the management or possession or both of the industrial<br \/>\nunit  and transfer the same by way of lease or sale where it<br \/>\nfinds  that any industrial concern, who had taken loan,\t had<br \/>\nmade  default  in  repayment  of any loan  advanced  or\t any<br \/>\ninstalment  thereof  or\t in  meeting of\t its  obligation  in<br \/>\nrelation  to  any  guarantee  given by\tthe  corporation  or<br \/>\notherwise  fails  to comply with the terms of its  agreement<br \/>\nwith the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Powers  conferred  under  Section  29  of  the  Act\t are<br \/>\nintended  to  achieve  the object of the  Act.\t The  amount<br \/>\nrealised in consequence of the sale or lease of the property<br \/>\nof  the\t defaulter can be adjusted in the liability  of\t the<br \/>\ndefaulter and the excess amount thus realised, if any, to be<br \/>\npaid  to  the person whose unit was proceeded against  under<br \/>\nSection\t 29  of the Act.  The activities of the\t corporation<br \/>\nare visualised not as profit earning concern but an extended<br \/>\narm  of\t the State to harness the business potential of\t the<br \/>\ncountry\t to  benefit the common man.  There is no  statutory<br \/>\nobligation  on\tthe  part  of the  corporation\tto  pay\t the<br \/>\ninterest  on  the  excess   amount  realised.\tHowever,  in<br \/>\nappropriate  cases  interest  may  be  awarded\tin  lieu  of<br \/>\ncompensation  or damages for allegedly wrongfully  retaining<br \/>\nthe  amount payable to a party.\t Interest can be awarded  on<br \/>\nequitable  grounds  as\twas held by this Court\tin  Satinder<br \/>\nSingh  v.   Umrao  Singh [1961 (3) SCR 676],  <a href=\"\/doc\/1196905\/\">Laxmichand  v.<br \/>\nIndore\tImprovement  Trust<\/a> [1975 (1) SCC 565] and  <a href=\"\/doc\/1619799\/\">Sovintorg<br \/>\n(India)\t Ltd.\tv.  State Bank of India, New Delhi<\/a>  [1999(6)<br \/>\nSCC 406].\n<\/p>\n<p>    A  perusal\tof  the impugned order shows that  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  has not referred to any ground justifying the payment<br \/>\nof  interest to the respondents.  The respondents have\talso<br \/>\nnot  referred to any circumstance warranting the exercise of<br \/>\npowers\tof  equity  in their favour.  The  reliance  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel  for the respondents on  Sovintorg  (India)<br \/>\nLtd.&#8217;s\tcase (supra) is misplaced.  In that case this  Court<br \/>\nhas  held:   &#8220;There  was  no contract  between\tthe  parties<br \/>\nregarding  payment  of\tinterest on delayed  deposit  or  on<br \/>\naccount of delay on the part of the opposite party to render<br \/>\nthe  services.\tInterest cannot be claimed under Section  34<br \/>\nof  the Civil Procedure Code as its provisions have not been<br \/>\nspecifically  made  applicable to the proceedings under\t the<br \/>\nAct.   We,  however,  find  that the  general  provision  of<br \/>\nSection\t 34  being  based  upon\t justice,  equity  and\tgood<br \/>\nconscience   would  authorise  the   Redressal\tForums\t and<br \/>\nCommission  to\talso grant interest appropriately under\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances of each case.  Interest may also be awarded in<br \/>\nlieu  of compensation or damages in appropriate cases.\t The<br \/>\ninterest  can  also be awarded on equitable grounds  as\t was<br \/>\nheld  by this Court in Satinder Singh v.  Umrao Singh (1961)<br \/>\n1 SCR 676.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the record it appears that after getting a loan in<br \/>\nthe  year 1983 and 1986 the respondents committed persistent<br \/>\ndefaults  in repayment which necessitated the action against<br \/>\nthem  under  Section 29 of the Act in the year 1991.  As  no<br \/>\namount\twas paid till 13th April, 1993, the corporation sold<br \/>\nthe  industrial\t unit,\ta hotel, for an amount\tof  Rs.39.75<br \/>\nlacs.  Before the excess outstanding amount could be paid to<br \/>\nthe  respondents,  they\t filed a writ petition in  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  challenging  the action of the corporation  and\tthus<br \/>\npreventing  it from making the payment.\t The counsel of\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  even  made an offer that there was a  buyer  to<br \/>\npurchase   the\thotel  for  a\tsum  of\t Rs.60\tlacs.\t The<br \/>\nnegotiations  with the prospective buyer could not mature on<br \/>\naccount\t of application filed by the earlier purchaser.\t The<br \/>\nHigh  Court  instead  of  deciding the\tapplication  of\t the<br \/>\nearlier\t purchaser  disposed of the writ petition  vide\t the<br \/>\norder  impugned.  As noticed earlier, the High Court has not<br \/>\nassigned  any reason much less a cogent one for the  payment<br \/>\nof  interest.\tIn  the\t absence of  an\t agreement  and\t the<br \/>\nstatutory  provision,  interest could not be claimed by\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  as\t a  right.  The court did not refer  to\t any<br \/>\ncircumstance  on the basis of which the interest could\thave<br \/>\nbeen granted as an equitable relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Under  the\tcircumstances the appeal is allowed and\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  order\t of the High Court, in so far as it  directs@@<br \/>\n\t  JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nthe  payment  of the interest at the rate of 13% along\twith@@<br \/>\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nexcess amount is set aside.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>    I.A. No.2 of 2000<\/p>\n<p>    In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal, the application<br \/>\nhas become infructuous.\t The same is dismissed having become<br \/>\ninfructuous.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 441 of 1999 PETITIONER: HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE FINANCIAL Vs. RESPONDENT: VS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/10\/2000 BENCH: K.T. Thomas &amp; R.P. Sethi. JUDGMENT: SETHI,J. L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J The only point in controversy in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-27T16:10:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-27T16:10:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1525,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000\",\"name\":\"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-27T16:10:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-27T16:10:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000","datePublished":"2000-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-27T16:10:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000"},"wordCount":1525,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000","name":"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-27T16:10:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himachal-pradesh-state-financial-vs-vs-on-31-october-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Himachal Pradesh State Financial vs Vs on 31 October, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105422"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105422\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}