{"id":106660,"date":"1994-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994"},"modified":"2017-04-18T15:57:08","modified_gmt":"2017-04-18T10:27:08","slug":"state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994","title":{"rendered":"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling &#8230; on 14 December, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling &#8230; on 14 December, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC  (2)\t19, \t  JT 1995 (2)\t 14<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M S V.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Manohar Sujata (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF BANK BIKANER &amp; JAIPUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNATIONAL IRON &amp; STEEL ROLLING CORPORATION AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/12\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\nBENCH:\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nFAIZAN UDDIN (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (2)\t19\t  JT 1995 (2)\t 14\n 1994 SCALE  (5)249\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSUJATA V MANOHAR, J.- Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The  appellant, namely, the State Bank of\tBikaner\t and<br \/>\nJaipur\thad  given cash credit facilities to  Respondent  1,<br \/>\nNational Iron and Steel Rolling Corporation.  Respondents  2<br \/>\nto  5  are the partners of Respondent 1. As a  security\t for<br \/>\nrepayment  of  the amounts advanced to Respondent 1  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant-bank,\t Respondent  1 created a mortgage  of  their<br \/>\nfactory premises situated at Industrial Area, Bharatpur by a<br \/>\nDeed  of  Mortgage dated 18-10-1977.  They have also,  by  a<br \/>\nLetter\tof  Promise dated 10-6-1981, pledged the  plant\t and<br \/>\nmachinery  installed in the said premises to the bank  as  a<br \/>\nsecurity for the said advances.\t There is also an  agreement<br \/>\nfor  the pledge of movables dated 7-1-1980 executed  by\t the<br \/>\nfirst respondent in favour of the appellant-bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The  appellant-bank  filed Civil Suit No. 5\/86  in\t the<br \/>\ncourt of the Additional District Judge II, Bharatpur against<br \/>\nthe respondents for the recovery of a sum of Rs 3,79,672 due<br \/>\nand  payable  under the above cash credit facility  and\t for<br \/>\nfuture interest @ 16.25% p.a. with quarterly rests.  In this<br \/>\nsuit  the appellant-bank also asked for the  realisation  of<br \/>\nthe mortgage security under Order 34, Rule 4 of the Code  of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   While  the\t suit  was  pending,  the  Commercial  Taxes<br \/>\nOfficer,  Bharatpur  got himself impleaded in  the  suit  on<br \/>\n18-5-1990  on the ground that he had a prior claim  for\t the<br \/>\nrecovery  of  a sum of Rs 1, 19,122 as sales tax  dues\tfrom<br \/>\nRespondent  1 and was entitled to realize it by sale of\t the<br \/>\nmortgaged property.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The  property  which  is  the  subject-matter  of\t the<br \/>\nmortgage  has been sold by auction under the orders  of\t the<br \/>\ncourt  for  a sum of Rs 4,02,000 to one\t Smt  Kamlesh  Goel.<br \/>\nUnder  the orders of the court the sale proceeds  have\tbeen<br \/>\ndeposited  in  court.  It was contended\t by  the  Commercial<br \/>\nTaxes  Officer,\t Bharatpur that the sales tax  dues  of\t the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent  were liable to be paid first out  of\t the<br \/>\nsale  proceeds.\t  The claim of the appellant-bank  could  be<br \/>\nsatisfied  only out of the balance amount.  The trial  court<br \/>\nby  its\t judgment and order dated  18-5-1990  accepted\tthis<br \/>\nclaim of the Commercial Taxes Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 21<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The revision petition of the appellant-bank was dismissed by<br \/>\nthe  High Court by the impugned judgment and  order.   Hence<br \/>\nthis appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The  claim of the Commercial Taxes\t Officer,  Bharatpur<br \/>\nrests on the provisions of Section 11-AAAA of the  Rajasthan<br \/>\nSales Tax Act, 1954.  Section 11-AAAA has been introduced in<br \/>\nthe Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 by way of an amendment  in<br \/>\n1989.  Section 11-AAAA is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8221; 11-AAAA.  Liability under this Act to be the<br \/>\n\t      first  charge.Notwithstanding anything to\t the<br \/>\n\t      contrary\tcontained  in any law for  the\ttime<br \/>\n\t      being  in force, any amount of  tax,  penalty,<br \/>\n\t      interest and any other sum, if any, payable by<br \/>\n\t      a\t dealer or any other person under this\tAct,<br \/>\n\t      shall  be the first charge on the property  of<br \/>\n\t      the dealer, or such person.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Under this section the amount of sales tax or any other\t sum<br \/>\ndue  and payable by a dealer or any other person  under\t the<br \/>\nRajasthan  Sales  Tax Act, 1954, is a first  charge  on\t the<br \/>\nproperty of the dealer or of such person.  It is on  account<br \/>\nof the provisions of this section that the Commercial  Taxes<br \/>\nOfficer\t claimed priority for the recovery of the sales\t tax<br \/>\ndues from the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property.\t The<br \/>\nappellant,  however,  contended that since the\tmortgage  in<br \/>\ntheir  favour  is prior in point of time, their\t claim\twill<br \/>\nhave precedence over the claim of the sales tax authorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   It\t is, therefore, necessary to consider the effect  of<br \/>\nSection\t 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on  an<br \/>\nexisting  mortgage in respect of the property of the  dealer<br \/>\nor  the person liable to pay sales tax or other\t sums  under<br \/>\nthe  Rajasthan\tSales  Tax Act, 1954.  Section\t100  of\t the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act deals with charges on an  immovable<br \/>\nproperty which can be created either by an act of parties or<br \/>\nby  operation  of  law.\t It provides  that  where  immovable<br \/>\nproperty  of one person is made security for the payment  of<br \/>\nmoney  to another, and the transaction does not amount to  a<br \/>\nmortgage,  a charge is created on the property and  all\t the<br \/>\nprovisions in the Transfer of Property Act which apply to  a<br \/>\nsimple\tmortgage  shall,  so far as may be,  apply  to\tsuch<br \/>\ncharge.\t  A  mortgage on the other hand,  is  defined  under<br \/>\nSection 58 of the Transfer of Property Act as a transfer  of<br \/>\nan  interest in specific immovable property for the  purpose<br \/>\nof securing the payment of money advanced or to be  advanced<br \/>\nas set out therein.  The distinction between a mortgage\t and<br \/>\na  charge  was\tconsidered  by this Court  in  the  case  of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1064891\/\">Dattatreya  Shanker  Mote v. Anand  Chintaman  Datar1.\t The<br \/>\nCourt<\/a>  has  observed (at pages 806-807) that a charge  is  a<br \/>\nwider  term as it includes also a mortgage, in\tthat,  every<br \/>\nmortgage  is a charge, but every charge is not\ta  mortgage.<br \/>\nThe Court has then considered the application of the  second<br \/>\npart  of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property  Act  which<br \/>\ninter alia deals with a charge not being enforceable against<br \/>\na  bona\t fide transferee of the property for  value  without<br \/>\nnotice\tof  the\t charge.   It  has  held  that\tthe   phrase<br \/>\n&#8220;transferee of property&#8221; refers to the transferee of  entire<br \/>\ninterest in the property and it<br \/>\n1 (1974) 2 SCC 799<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">22<\/span><br \/>\ndoes  not  cover  the transfer of only an  interest  in\t the<br \/>\nproperty by way of a mortgage.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.In  the  present  case we have  to  consider\twhether\t the<br \/>\nstatutory  first charge which is created under\tSection\t 11-<br \/>\nAAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act over the property of the<br \/>\ndealer or a person liable to pay sales tax and\/or other dues<br \/>\nunder the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, is created in respect  of<br \/>\nthe entire interest in the property or only the\t mortgagor&#8217;s<br \/>\ninterest  in  the  property when the dealer  has  created  a<br \/>\nmortgage  on  the  property.   In  other  words,  will\t the<br \/>\nstatutory  first  charge  have\tpriority  over\tan   earlier<br \/>\nmortgage.  It was urged by Mr Tarkunde, learned counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe appellant-bank that at the time when the statutory first<br \/>\ncharge came into existence, there was already a mortgage  in<br \/>\nrespect of the same property.  Therefore, the only  property<br \/>\nwhich  was possessed by the dealer and\/or person  liable  to<br \/>\npay tax or other dues under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, was<br \/>\nequity of redemption in respect of that property.  The first<br \/>\ncharge\twould  operate,\t therefore, only on  the  equity  of<br \/>\nredemption.  The argument though ingenious, will have to  be<br \/>\nrejected.   Where  a mortgage is created in respect  of\t any<br \/>\nproperty, undoubtedly, an interest in the property is carved<br \/>\nout  in favour of the mortgagee.  The mortgagor is  entitled<br \/>\nto  redeem  his property on payment of\tthe  mortgage  dues.<br \/>\nThis does not, however, mean that the property ceases to  be<br \/>\nthe  property of the mortgagor.\t The title to  the  property<br \/>\nremains\t with  the mortgagor.  Therefore, when\ta  statutory<br \/>\nfirst  charge is created on the property of the dealer,\t the<br \/>\nproperty  subjected  to\t the  first  charge  is\t the  entire<br \/>\nproperty  of the dealer.  The interest of the  mortgagee  is<br \/>\nnot  excluded  from  the first charge.\t The  first  charge,<br \/>\ntherefore,  which  is created under Section 11-AAAA  of\t the<br \/>\nRajasthan  Sales Tax Act will operate on the property  as  a<br \/>\nwhole  and not only on the equity of redemption as urged  by<br \/>\nMr Tarkunde.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.We  find support for this conclusion in  the\tobservations<br \/>\nmade in Fisher and Lightwood&#8217;s Law of Mortgage, 10th Edn. at<br \/>\npage  3\t 3 where the statutory charges\tare  discussed.\t  In<br \/>\ndealing\t with  a  statutory  charge  in\t favour\t of   rating<br \/>\nauthorities  in\t respect  of rating  surcharges\t for  unused<br \/>\ncommercial buildings under the General Rate Act, 1967, it is<br \/>\nstated that &#8220;a statutory charge has priority to the interest<br \/>\nof  the mortgagee under a mortgage existing when the  charge<br \/>\narose&#8221;.\t  In  the case of Westminster City  Council  v.\t Hay<br \/>\nmarket\tPublishing  Ltd.1 the English Court of\tAppeals\t was<br \/>\nrequired  to  consider\twhether a statutory  charge  on\t the<br \/>\nproperty under the General Rate Act would have priority over<br \/>\na  legal mortgage on the property existing when\t the  charge<br \/>\ncame  into  being.  It was argued that the charge  would  be<br \/>\nonly on the mortgagor-owner&#8217;s interest in the property\ti.e.<br \/>\non  the\t equity\t of redemption.\t The  court  negatived\tthis<br \/>\ncontention.   It held that &#8220;charge on the land&#8221; imposed\t for<br \/>\nan  unpaid  surcharge was not confined to a  charge  on\t the<br \/>\nowner&#8217;s interest in the premises when the charge arose,\t but<br \/>\nextended to a charge on all the estates and interests in the<br \/>\npremises existing when the charge arose.\n<\/p>\n<p>1 (1981) 2 All ER 555<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">23<\/span><br \/>\nThe  rating authority&#8217;s charge would have priority over\t the<br \/>\nbank&#8217;s interest as a mortgagee.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.In  the present case, the section creates a first  charge<br \/>\non  the\t property,  thus  clearly  giving  priority  to\t the<br \/>\nstatutory  charge  over all other charges  on  the  property<br \/>\nincluding  a mortgage.\tThe submission, therefore, that\t the<br \/>\nstatutory  first  charge created by Section 11-AAAA  of\t the<br \/>\nRajasthan Sales Tax Act can operate only over the equity  of<br \/>\nredemption, cannot be accepted.\t The charge operates on\t the<br \/>\nentire property of the dealer including the interest of\t the<br \/>\nmortgagee therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.Looked at a little differently, the statute has created a<br \/>\nfirst  charge on the property of the dealer.  What is  meant<br \/>\nby  a  &#8220;first  charge&#8221;?\t Does it  have\tprecedence  over  an<br \/>\nearlier\t mortgage?   Now, as set out in\t Dattatreya  Shanker<br \/>\nMote  case1  a charge is a wider term than a  mortgage.\t  It<br \/>\nwould  cover within its ambit a mortgage  also.\t  Therefore,<br \/>\nwhen a first charge is created by operation of law over\t any<br \/>\nproperty, that charge will have precedence over an  existing<br \/>\nmortgage.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.No  other  contention  has been  urged  before  us.\t We,<br \/>\ntherefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\t The  appeal  is,  therefore,  dismissed.   In\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">24<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling &#8230; on 14 December, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (2) 19, JT 1995 (2) 14 Author: M S V. Bench: Manohar Sujata (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF BANK BIKANER &amp; JAIPUR Vs. RESPONDENT: NATIONAL IRON &amp; STEEL ROLLING CORPORATION AND [&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-106660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling ... on 14 December, 1994 - 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\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling ... on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-18T10:27:08+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling &#8230; on 14 December, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-18T10:27:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994\"},\"wordCount\":1704,\"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\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994\",\"name\":\"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling ... on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-18T10:27:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling &#8230; on 14 December, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling ... on 14 December, 1994 - 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\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling ... on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-18T10:27:08+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling &#8230; on 14 December, 1994","datePublished":"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-18T10:27:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994"},"wordCount":1704,"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\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994","name":"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling ... on 14 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-18T10:27:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bank-bikaner-jaipur-vs-national-iron-steel-rolling-on-14-december-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Bank Bikaner &amp; Jaipur vs National Iron &amp; Steel Rolling &#8230; on 14 December, 1994"}]},{"@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\/106660","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=106660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}