{"id":108997,"date":"1993-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993"},"modified":"2018-03-17T01:20:56","modified_gmt":"2018-03-16T19:50:56","slug":"united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993","title":{"rendered":"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (1) 575, \t JT 1993 (6)\t116<\/div>\n
Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNITED BANK OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/10\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (1) 575\t  JT 1993 (6)\t116\n 1993 SCALE  (4)19\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBHARUCHA,  J.- The Naskarpara Jute Mills Co. Ltd. was  wound
\nup  under the orders of the High Court at Calcutta  on\tJuly
\n28,  1981  and\tthe Official Liquidator\t was  appointed\t its
\nliquidator.\n<\/p>\n
2.The  company had taken on lease from\tBharat\tAbhyudaya
\nCotton Mills Ltd. about 7 bighas of land under a deed  dated
\nJuly  2,  1931.\t The lease was for 99  years  and  permitted
\nrenewal\t on the same terms for another 99 years.   The\trent
\nunder the lease was Rs 1200 per annum.\tOn September 25,
\n578<\/span>
\n1935 the lessor’s interest in the said land was purchased by
\nBrij Mohan Saraogi who settled the same upon a trust  called
\nthe  Brij  Mohan  Saraogi  Charitable  Trust.\tThe  company
\nattorned  to the Trust as its tenant in respect of the\tsaid
\nland.\tAt the time when the winding-up petition  was  filed
\nthe  company had been in default of rent and  consent  terms
\nhad been arrived at whereunder the company had undertaken to
\npay the arrears.\n<\/p>\n
3.On  August 13, 198 1, the United Bank of India filed\ta
\nsuit  against  the  company  in\t liquidation  after   having
\nobtained  the  leave of the court under Section 448  of\t the
\nCompanies  Act for a decree in the sum of Rs  1,81,07,623.64
\nwith interest up to July 3 1, 1981. Upon the application  of
\nthe  Bank the Official Liquidator was appointed Receiver  of
\nthe goods, stocks and assets hypothecated by the company  in
\nliquidation   to  the  Bank  and  all  immovable   property,
\nincluding the said land and the factory premises which stood
\nupon it, which had been mortgaged to the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
4.On  October 8, 1982 the High Court, in  the  winding-up
\nproceedings directed the sale of the property and assets  of
\nthe company in liquidation.  The sale was to be effected  by
\nthe  Official Liquidator as directed by the  court.   Public
\nadvertisements\twere issued consequent upon such  directions
\nand  sealed offers received on December 3, 1982.  The  Trust
\nopposed\t the sale, so that consideration of the\t offers\t was
\ndeferred.   On\tJanuary\t 25, 1982 the  Trust  wrote  to\t the
\nOfficial Liquidator asking him to disclaim the said land and
\nsurrender  its\tpossession  to\tthe  Trust  because  it\t was
\nburdened  with onerous covenants.  On January 3 1, 1983\t the
\nTrust  took out a Judge’s Summons asking the High  Court  to
\ndirect\tthe  Official Liquidator under Section\t535  of\t the
\nCompanies  Act\tto  disclaim the said land  because  it\t was
\nburdened  with\tonerous\t covenants.  The  Bank\topposed\t the
\nJudge’s\t Summons  and  pleaded\tthat the  said\tland  was  a
\nsecurity  for the loans that it had advanced to the  company
\nin  liquidation\t and  that it should  be  available  to\t the
\nsecured and unsecured creditors; the covenants of the  lease
\nwere  not onerous and there was a saleable interest  in\t the
\nsaid  land.  On February 4, 1983 the Company Judge  directed
\nthe Official Liquidator to return the offers to the  parties
\nwho  had made them.  On July 7, 1983 the Company Judge\tmade
\nthe  Judge’s  Summons  absolute and  directed  the  Official
\nLiquidator   to\t disclaim  the\tsaid  land  and\t hand\tover
\npossession thereof to the Trust.\n<\/p>\n
5.The  Bank  appealed against the order\t of  the  Company
\nJudge.\tThe Division Bench which heard the appeal  dismissed
\nit.   It held, inter alia, that the lease of the  said\tland
\nstood  forfeited and\/or terminated by reason of the  Trust’s
\nnotice\tdated January 25, 1983.\t It held that no  notice  in
\nwriting\t to  the company in liquidation for  remedy  of\t the
\nbreach was necessary because the Trust did not want to\tfile
\na  suit\t for  ejectment.  The Division\tBench  rejected\t the
\ncontention  based  upon\t Section  114  of  the\tTransfer  of
\nProperty  Act because the Official Liquidator was not  in  a
\npositiot  to  apply  for any relief  against  forfeiture  by
\ntendering arrears of rent and interest.\t As the lease  stood
\nforfeited,  the said land ceased to be a part of the  assets
\nof the company in liquidation and the company in liquidation
\nhad  from the date of the notice of termination no right  or
\ninterest therein.  It could not therefore, be transferred
\n579<\/span>
\nor  sold by the Official Liquidator.  Inasmuch as, in  spite
\nof  forfeiture\tof the lease, the  Official  Liquidator\t was
\ncontinuing in possession of the said land, he was liable  to
\npay   mesne   profits  for  such  wrongful   possession\t  or
\noccupation.   Further, on account of arrears of rent a\thuge
\namount\twas due to the Trust.  Therefore, the said land\t was
\nonerous.\n<\/p>\n
6.It may be mentioned that the Bank had desired to pay to
\nthe  Trust  the\t arrears  of rent  but\tthe  Division  Bench
\ndeclined to permit it to do so.\n<\/p>\n
7.The  Bank thereupon filed a special leave  petition  to
\nappeal against the judgment and order of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
8.There\t  are  several\torders\tof  this  Court\t in   the
\nproceedings which need to be referred to.  Special leave  to
\nappeal\twas  granted on January 27, 1986  and  the  judgment
\nunder  appeal  was  stayed.  On\t January  28,  1987  learned
\ncounsel\t appearing  for the various workers’ unions  of\t the
\ncompany\t in  liquidation  said that  the  unions  wanted  to
\nexplore\t the possibility of taking over the interest of\t the
\nTrust with the object of running the mills of the company in
\nliquidation.   They stated that their clients would  explore
\nthe  possibility  of buying the interest of  the  Trust\t for
\nabout  Rs 30 lakhs.  On April 30, 1987 the Court  passed  an
\norder which said, inter alia, this:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We have heard this matter in part today.\t  In
\n\t      order to arrive at a proper adjustment of\t the
\n\t      rights  of  the parties judicially  we  direct
\n\t      that  the land and assets of  Naskarpara\tJute
\n\t      Mills  Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) and  as\talso
\n\t      the leasehold land which is the subject-matter
\n\t      of this appeal be sold by the Liquidator as  a
\n\t      going concern as quickly as possible by August
\n\t      31, 1987.\t The Official Liquidator, High Court
\n\t      Calcutta\t should\t take  immediate  steps\t  to
\n\t      implement\t this  order  and out  of  the\tsale
\n\t      proceeds,\t after meeting the expenses of\tsale
\n\t      which are financed by the appellant Bank,\t the
\n\t      Liquidator will pay for the time being subject
\n\t      to  adjudication\tof  all the  rights  of\t the
\n\t      parties,\ta sum of Rs 7.5 lakhs to Brij  Mohan
\n\t      Saraogi Charitable Trust (Respondents 2 and  3
\n\t      the Trustees of the said Trust) in respect  of
\n\t      their rights, claimed over the 7 bighas and 15
\n\t      kattas  of land.\tThe said leasehold  property
\n\t      shall  be sold free of leasehold rights  along
\n\t      with  the other entire assets of\tthe  company
\n\t      consisting  of  movables and immovables  as  a
\n\t      going concern without dismantling any  portion
\n\t      and  on ‘as is where is basis’.  More  than  9
\n\t      lakhs  is\t claimed to have been  paid  to\t the
\n\t      Official Receiver by the Bank.  Further amount
\n\t      is  to  be  given\t by  the  Bank\tto  Official
\n\t      Liquidator\/Receiver  for conducting the  same.
\n\t      These  sums are to be paid to the Bank at\t the
\n\t      first  instance  out  of\tthe  sale  proceeds.
\n\t      After payment to the Bank the Liquidator\twill
\n\t      pay  for the time being a sum of Rs 7.5  lakhs
\n\t      to  the trustees of the said trust in  respect
\n\t      of  their right claimed over the 7 bighas\t and
\n\t      15  kattas  of  land  and\t the  balance\tsale
\n\t      proceeds\tto be invested in Term Deposit\twith
\n\t      United  Bank  of India till  determination  by
\n\t      this Hon’ble Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  May\t 9, 1988 the offer of one Shyam\t Sundar\t Agarwal  to
\npurchase  the  assets  and  properties\tof  the\t company  in
\nliquidation was accepted.  The Court said:\n<\/p>\n
580<\/span><\/p>\n
“The consideration price will be Rs 2,60,00,000 out of which
\nShyam  Sundar Agarwal will pay Rs 30 lakhs within two  weeks
\nfrom today with the United Bank of India in the name of\t the
\nOfficial Liquidator.  The balance amount will be paid in  24
\nequal  monthly\tinstalments.   Shyam  Sundar  Agarwal\twill
\nfurnish bank guarantee for Rs Two crores and thirty lakhs to
\nthe  satisfaction  of the Liquidator  concerned\t within\t six
\nweeks  from today.  All the dues of the workers present\t and
\npast  will  be\tsettled by Shyam  Sunder  Agarwal  with\t the
\nworkers who are represented by various unions by Mr A.K. Sen
\nand P.K. Banerjee appearing for unions and they agree to run
\nthe  mill  in adjustment with him as a going  concern.\t The
\nmonthly instalments as aforesaid will be deposited with\t the
\nUnited Bank of India in the name of the Official Liquidator.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Shyam  Sundar Agarwal will not be\t liable\t for
\n\t      any  past liability except in respect  of\t the
\n\t      workers’\tdues.  If the State of\tWest  Bengal
\n\t      has any rights on land about which there is no
\n\t      adjudication,  this order will  not  prejudice
\n\t      such   rights,   if  any.\t   The\t appropriate
\n\t      authorities    namely    the    Municipalities
\n\t      concerned\t and other authorities\twill  render
\n\t      all  assistance to the person concerned  i.e.,
\n\t      Shyam   Sundar  Agarwal  for   restoring\t all
\n\t      electricity  and water connections on  payment
\n\t      of  such arrears and the\tOfficial  Liquidator
\n\t      will  ensure that such payment is\t made.\t The
\n\t      possession  will\tbe  given  to  Shyam  Sundar
\n\t      Agarwal\tafter\tdepositing   Rs\t  30   lakhs
\n\t      forthwith.   In default of making any  of\t the
\n\t      payments or in default of furnishing the\tbank
\n\t      guarantee or in the default of payment of\t any
\n\t      two instalments in the manner indicated  above
\n\t      or  in not keeping the bank  guarantee  alive,
\n\t      the  Official Liquidator will take  possession
\n\t      and the amount deposited will stand forfeited.
\n\t      In  such\ta case or in case the  mill  is\t not
\n\t      started  within a period of eight\t weeks\tfrom
\n\t      today  the transaction will fall\tthrough\t and
\n\t      the   parties  including\tDr  L.M.   Singhvi’s
\n\t      clients  and Mr U.C. Law’s clients will be  at
\n\t      liberty to apply to this Court for appropriate
\n\t      directions.”\n<\/p>\n
An  order was made on July 20, 1988, whereby  extensions  of
\ntime  were  given to the said Agarwal for  payment  and\t for
\nfurnishing  bank  guarantees.  On September 20,\t 1988,\tsome
\nmore  time was given to him to furnish bank guarantees.\t  On
\nNovember  30, 1988, time to furnish a bank guarantee and  to
\nmake  the  payment of Rs 10 lakhs was again  extended.\t The
\nsaid Agarwal not having made payments as directed,  contempt
\nproceedings were initiated against him.\t On August 27, 1992,
\nbailable  warrants  were issued to secure  his\tpresence  in
\nCourt since he had not appeared.  The Court stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It is not disputed that out of the sale price
\n\t      of  Rs  2,60,00,000 (Rupees Two  crores  sixty
\n\t      lakhs) a sum of Rs 62,00,000 (Rupees  Sixtytwo
\n\t      lakhs) has been paid before December 31, 1988.
\n\t      The  balance  of Rs 1, 98,00,000\t(Rupees\t One
\n\t      crore  ninety-eight lakhs) is yet to be  paid.
\n\t      By  this order, we give option to the  alleged
\n\t      contemnors  to  deposit  the said\t sum  of  Rs
\n\t      1,98,00,000  (Rupees  One\t crore\tninety-eight
\n\t      lakhs)  with  the Registry of  this  Court  by
\n\t      September 16, 1992.  The question of
\n\t      581<\/span>
\n\t       interest on the said amount shall be  decided
\n\t      with  the main case.  The entitlement  of\t the
\n\t      Bank to receive the amount and the  obligation
\n\t      of  the contemnors to pay the same shall\talso
\n\t      be subject to the decision of this Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It had transpired that the said Agarwal was acting on behalf
\nof  Triputi  Jute  Industries (hereinafter  referred  to  as
\n‘Triputi’)  and contempt notices were issued to it  and\t its
\nDirectors.  On October 20, 1992, the Court recorded that the
\nmodalities of payment of Rs 1,98,00,000 and 15% interest had
\nbeen  suggested\t by counsel appearing on behalf\t of  Triputi
\nwhich  it  considered  prima  facie  proper.   Triputi\t was
\npermitted to deposit Rs 30,00,000 in Court by the next\tday.
\nOn  October  21, 1992, the Court  recorded  the\t undertaking
\ngiven by Triputi, thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  purchaser Triputi Jute  Industries\tLtd.
\n\t      through  their Director namely Shri Ram  Ratan
\n\t      Choudhury\t (one of the contemnors)  and  their
\n\t      Principal\t Officer  namely  Shri\tPritam\t Kr.
\n\t      Jhawar  undertake\t to  pay the  amount  of  Rs
\n\t      1,98,00,000 in the following manner:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)Rupees\t Fifteen lakhs have already  been
\n\t      deposited in the Registry of this Court  today
\n\t      i.e.  October 21, 1992.  A further sum  of  Rs
\n\t      15,00,000 shall be deposited with the Registry
\n\t      of this Court by 4.00\tp.m.  tomorrow\ti.e.
\n\t      October 22, 1992;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)A further sum of Rs 70,00,000 (either by
\n\t      way  of demand draft or cash) to be  deposited
\n\t      with  the Registry of this Court on or  before
\n\t      December\t31,  1992.   Balance  amount  of  Rs
\n\t      98,00,000 would be paid together with interest
\n\t      due  on the total amount Rs  1,98,00,000\t@15%
\n\t      p.a.  with effect from January 1, 1989  in  12
\n\t      equal  monthly instalments.   Each  instalment
\n\t      shall be deposited before the end of the month
\n\t      i.e. the first instalment shall be paid on  or
\n\t      before  January  31, 1993 and  all  subsequent
\n\t      instalments in similar manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      We accept the undertaking given to this  Court
\n\t      which  we have reproduced above.\t We  further
\n\t      direct that the amount of Rs 1,98,00,000\twith
\n\t      interest\tshall be paid in terms of the  above
\n\t      undertaking  within the time specified in\t the
\n\t      undertaking.    Simply  because  one  of\t the
\n\t      Directors\t   (contemnors)\t  has\tgiven\t the
\n\t      undertaking  it would not mean that the  other
\n\t      contemnors   or\tthe  Directors\t have\tbeen
\n\t      discharged  from their liability.\t They  shall
\n\t      equally remain responsible personally as\twell
\n\t      as  in their capacity as the Directors of\t the
\n\t      Company to discharge their liability of paying
\n\t      the amount.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  October  22,  1992, the Court noted\t the  contention  of
\nlearned counsel for the Trust that he was entitled to  claim
\nthe  price of the said land which had been sold\t to  Triputi
\nand  his submission that he should be given part payment  in
\nrespect\t thereof out of the amount which had been  deposited
\nby Triputi.  The Court said that it was of the view that the
\nrights\tof the Trust, as of all other creditors, had  to  be
\ndetermined  either  by the Court or by any  other  authority
\nunder  the  directions\tof the Court and  that\tit  was\t not
\ninclined for the
\n582<\/span>
\namount\tto go into the question.  On September 8, 1993,\t the
\nCourt  noted  that pursuant to its order  dated\t August\t 27,
\n1992,  the sum of Rs 1 crore 98 lakhs had been deposited  in
\nCourt by Triputi and that the various contentions raisedby
\nthe parties were now ripe for final adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
9.First, as to the appeal.  We have heard Mr G.L.  Sanghi
\nfor the Bank and DrA.M. Singhvi for the Trust.\tDr  Singhvi
\nis,  we\t think, right in saying that this Court’s  order  of
\nApril 30, 1987, really makes the appeal infructuous because,
\nwith a view to arriving at a proper adjustment of the rights
\nof  the parties judicially, this Court, with the consent  of
\nthe  Trust,  directed the Official Liquidator  to  sell\t the
\nassets\tand  properties\t of  the  company  in\tliquidation,
\nincluding  the\tsaid  land, and\t it  directed  the  Official
\nLiquidator  to\tpay to the Trust the sum of  Rs\t 7.5  lakhs,
\nsubject to adjudication of all the rights of the parties, in
\nrespect\t of  Trust’s rights over the said land.\t  The  Court
\nmade it clear that the said land was to be sold free of\t the
\nlease.\t The  surviving\t issue,\t therefore,  as\t Dr  Singhvi
\nrightly\t pointed  out, and which Mr Sanghi  did\t not  really
\ndispute, was that it was for the Court to assess what should
\nbe paid by the Official Liquidator from out of the funds  of
\nthe  company  in liquidation to the Trust as and by  way  of
\ncompensation for its rights in the land.  As we have pointed
\nout, the said land, though of a substantial size, is subject
\nto  a  99  year lease entered into in July  193\t 1,  with  a
\nrenewal\t clause for a further 99 years at a rent of only  Rs
\n1200  per  annum.   That the lease extends  for\t another  37
\nyears, that it is liable to renewal for a further 99  years,
\nand  all  at  the meagre rental of Rs 1200  per\t annum\tmust
\nsubstantially depress the value of the lessor’s interest  in
\nthe  said land.\t In our view, therefore, the Trust would  be
\namply  recompensed  if it received as compensation  for\t the
\ndisposal  of its rights in the said land and for arrears  of
\nrent the sum of Rs 10 lakhs from the Official Liquidator out
\nof  the\t funds of the’ company in  liquidation.\t  The  Trust
\nhaving already received the amount of Rs 7.50 lakhs pursuant
\nto  the order dated April 30, 1987, we shall now direct\t the
\nOfficial  Liquidator to pay to the Trust the balance  amount
\nof  Rs\t2.50 lakhs within 12 weeks from today  in  full\t and
\nfinal settlement of the Trust’s claim against the company in
\nliquidation  of\t whatsoever nature in respect  of  the\tsaid
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
10.While  the  aforesaid  direction will  dispose  of  the
\nappeal,\t we would like to say, having heard counsel  on\t the
\nmerits\tof  the appeal, that we are not satisfied  that\t the
\nDivision Bench appreciated the purpose of the provisions  of
\nSection 535 of the Companies Act.  Thereunder the High Court
\nmay  give leave to the Official Liquidator to disclaim\tland
\nof  any tenure which is part of the property of the  company
\nin  liquidation\t if it is burdened with\t onerous  covenants.
\nThe intention of Section 535 is to protect the creditors  of
\nthe  company in liquidation and not mulct them by reason  of
\nonerous covenants.  The power under Section 535 is not to be
\nlightly\t exercised.  Due care and circumspection have to  be
\nbestowed.   It must be remembered that an  order  permitting
\ndisclaimer, while it frees the company in liquidation of the
\nobligation to comply with covenants, puts the party in whose
\nfavour\tthe  covenants are, to\tserious\t disadvantage.\t The
\nCourt  must  therefore, be fully satisfied  that  there\t are
\nonerous covenants, covenants which impose a heavy
\n583<\/span>
\nburden upon the company in liquidation, before giving  leave
\nto disclaim them.\n<\/p>\n
11.We  are of the view that the High Court ought  to  have
\nappreciated  that it was rather unlikely that the party\t who
\nhad  the  benefit  of  onerous\tcovenants  would  apply\t for
\ndisclaimer   and   ought  to  have   viewed   the   Official
\nliquidator’s  application to disclaim made pursuant  to\t the
\nTrust’s\t letter\t to him in that behalf, in that\t light.\t  We
\nfind  it  difficult  to see how such a large  area  of\tland
\nleased\tto the company in liquidation for 99 years with\t the
\noption of renewal for a further 99 years for the meagre rent
\nof  Rs 1200 per annum can be said to be land  burdened\twith
\nonerous covenants.  We do not think that the High Court\t was
\njustified  in  debating\t and holding  in  proceedings  under
\nSection 535 that the lease of the said land had been validly
\nterminated so that the Official Liquidator became liable  to
\npay  mesne profits to the Trust, and that this coupled\twith
\narrears of rent, in five figures made the lease onerous.  We
\nare  also  of  the view that the Bank’s\t offer\tto  pay\t the
\narrears\t of rent to the Trust should have been\taccepted  by
\nthe  High  Court.  The Bank to protect and  keep  alive\t its
\nsecurity, had put Official Liquidator in funds in regard  to
\nother  matters\tand was eager to meet this  liability.\t Had
\nthis   been  done  valuable  property  of  the\tcompany\t  in
\nliquidation   could   have  been  retained   so\t  that\t its
\nundertaking, which stood on the said land, could have\tbeen
\nsold   as  a  running  concern,\t as  has  been\t done\tupon
\nintervention   of  this\t Court,\t for  the  benefit  of\t its
\ncreditors.\n<\/p>\n
12.We  now  consider the contempt proceedings on  the  one
\nhand  and the application on behalf of Triputi on the  other
\nfor diminution of the sale price by reason of the fact that,
\naccording  to Triputi, the Official Liquidator had not\tbeen
\nable   to  hand\t over  to  Triputi  possession\tof   certain
\nproperties  that    were  sold by him to it,  which,  it  is
\nalleged, the company in liquidation did not own.  The amount
\nof  Rs 1 crore 98 lakhs having been paid, what\tthis  really
\nboils  down to is whether Triputi should be made  liable  to
\npay interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereon.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In\t  our  view,  the  complete  answer   to   Triputi’s
\nallegation in regard to\t the   failure\t of   the   Official
\nLiquidator  to\thand  over  to\tit  possession\tof   certain
\nproperties  which were sold to it, which, according  to\t it,
\nthe company in liquidation did not even own, is contained in
\nclause 2 of the Terms and Conditions of Sale upon the  basis
\nof  which  the\tproperty  and  assets  of  the\tcompany\t  in
\nliquidation were sold by the Official Liquidator to  Triputi
\nunder the orders of this Court.\t Clause 2 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “2.\t The sale will be as  per  inventory
\n\t      list on ‘as is where is basis’ and subject  to
\n\t      the confirmation of the Hon’ble Supreme  Court
\n\t      of  India. The Official Liquidator  shall\t not
\n\t      provide  any  guarantee  and\/or  warranty\t  in
\n\t      respect of the immovable properties and as  to
\n\t      the quality, quantity or specification of\t the
\n\t      movable assets.  The intending purchaser\tmust
\n\t      satisfy  themselves in all respect as  regards
\n\t      the movable and immovable assets, as to  their
\n\t      title,\tencumbrances,\t area,\t   boundary,
\n\t      description, quality, quantity, and
\n\t      584<\/span>
\n\t      volume  etc. and the purchaser will be  deemed
\n\t      to  offer\t with  full  knowledge\tas  to\t the
\n\t      description,  area etc. of the properties\t and
\n\t      defects thereof, if any.\tThe purchaser  shall
\n\t      not  be entitled to claim any compensation  or
\n\t      deduction\t in price on any account  whatsoever
\n\t      and  shall  be deemed to\thave  purchased\t the
\n\t      property\tsubject to all\tencumbrances,  liens
\n\t      anti claims including those under the existing
\n\t      legislation affecting labour, staff etc.\t The
\n\t      Official\tLiquidator shall not  entertain\t any
\n\t      complaint\t in  this regard after the  sale  is
\n\t      over.   Any  mistake in  the  notice  inviting
\n\t      tender   shall   not   vitiate   the    sale.”
\n\t      (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.When\t the  Official Liquidator sells the  property  and
\nassets of a companyin  liquidation under the orders of\tthe
\nCourt  he  cannot  and does not hold out  any  guarantee  or
\nwarranty  in  respect  thereof.\t This  is  because  he\tmust
\nproceed upon the basis of what the records of the company in
\nliquidation  show.   It is for the  intending  purchaser  to
\nsatisfy\t  himself   in\tall  respects  as  to\tthe   title,
\nencumbrances and so forth of the immovable property that  he
\nproposes to purchase.  He cannot after having purchased\t the
\nproperty on such terms then claim diminution in the price on
\nthe  ground  of\t defect\t in  title  or\tdescription  of\t the
\nproperty.   The case of the Official Liquidator selling\t the
\nproperty of a company in liquidation under the orders of the
\nCourt is altogether different from the case of an individual
\nselling immovable property belonging to himself.  There\t is,
\ntherefore,  no\tmerit in the application made on  behalf  of
\nTriputi\t that there should be a diminution in price or\tthat
\nit  should not be made liable to pay interest on the sum  of
\nRs 1 crore 98 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
15.It is true, as was pointed out by Mr A.K. Sen,  learned
\ncounsel for Triputi, that on August 27, 1992, this Court had
\nsaid that the question of interest on the sum of Rs 1  crore
\n98  lakhs  would be decided with the main case.\t  What\tmust
\nalso  be  noted\t is the\t unequivocal  undertaking  given  on
\nOctober\t 21,  1992  by Triputi to  Court,  which  the  Court
\naccepted,  wherein  it\twas stated, “Balance  amount  of  Rs
\n98,00,000  would be paid together with interest due  on\t the
\ntotal  amount  Rs 1,98,00,000 @ 15% p.a.  with\teffect\tfrom
\nJanuary\t 1, 1989 in 12 equal monthly instalments”.  We\thave
\nalready\t referred to the various orders of this Court  which
\nindicate  quite clearly with what reluctance and  over\twhat
\nspan  of time Triputi paid the sum of Rs 1 crore  98  lakhs;
\nthat   itself\tmakes  the  payment  of\t  interest   thereon
\nappropriate.\tCoupled\t  therewith   is   the\t undertaking
\naforementioned.\t We are, therefore, of the view that Triputi
\nmust pay interest upon the amount of Rs 1 crore 98 lakhs  at
\nthe rate of 15% per anum from January 1, 1989 till  payment.
\nSuch  payment shall be made within 12 weeks from today.\t  We
\nmake it clear that in the event that the amount of  interest
\nas aforementioned is not paid within 12 weeks from today, it
\nshall  be open to one or more of the aggrieved\tpar-ties  to
\ntake   appropriate  proceedings\t against  Triputi  and\t its
\nDirectors.\n<\/p>\n
16.  Civil  Appeal No. 405 of 1986 is disposed of  with\t the
\nfollowing direction:The judgment and order under appeal
\nis set aside.  The Official Liquidatorshall  pay  to   the
\nBrij  Mohan  Saraogi Charitable Trust and  the\tTrust  shall
\nreceive\t the  sum  of Rs 10 lakhs out of the  funds  of\t the
\ncompany in
\n585<\/span>
\nliquidation  in\t full  and final settlement  of\t its  claims
\nagainst\t the company in liquidation of whatsoever nature  in
\nrespect of the said land.  The sum of\tRs 7.50 lakhs having
\nalready been received by the Trust pursuant to this  Court’s
\norder  dated  April  30, 1987, the  Official  Liquidator  is
\ndirected  to pay to the Trust the balance amount of Rs\t2.50
\nlakhs within 12 weeks.\n<\/p>\n
17.Upon\t  Contempt  Petition  No.  53  of  1989\t  in   the
\naforementioned\tCivil Appeal No. 405 of 1986 the only  order
\nis  that Triputi Jute Industries shall pay to  the  Official
\nLiquidator  interest  on the sum of Rs 1 crore 98  lakhs  at
\nthe rate of 15 per cent per annum from January 1, 1989\ttill
\npayment within 12 weeks from today.  In the event that\tsuch
\npayment is not made within 12 weeks from today, it shall  be
\nopen  to  one  or  more of the\taggrieved  parties  to\ttake
\nappropriate proceedings against Triputi and its Directors.\n<\/p>\n
18.The amount of interest as aforesaid shall be paid  into
\nthe account of the Official Liquidator with the United\tBank
\nof  India, Calcutta.  The amount of Rs 1 crore 98 lakhs\t and
\nof interest as aforesaid shall be disbursed and\/or  utilised
\nby  the Official Liquidator under the orders of the  Company
\nJudge.\t All  further proceedings in  liquidation  shall  be
\nunder the directions of the Company Judge.\n<\/p>\n
19.All other civil miscellaneous applications and  interim
\napplications in Civil Appeal No. 405 of 1986 do not  survive
\nand are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
20.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
586<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (1) 575, JT 1993 (6) 116 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) PETITIONER: UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/10\/1993 BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) […]<\/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-108997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnited Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-16T19:50:56+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-16T19:50:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993\"},\"wordCount\":4170,\"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\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993\",\"name\":\"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-16T19:50:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-16T19:50:56+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993","datePublished":"1993-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-16T19:50:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993"},"wordCount":4170,"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\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993","name":"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-16T19:50:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-bank-of-india-vs-official-liquidator-on-6-october-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator on 6 October, 1993"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/108997","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=108997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}