{"id":111981,"date":"2003-05-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-05-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003"},"modified":"2017-12-08T21:07:31","modified_gmt":"2017-12-08T15:37:31","slug":"central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003","title":{"rendered":"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2003 IVAD Delhi 237, 104 (2003) DLT 976, 2003 (69) DRJ 56<\/div>\n
Author: J Kapoor<\/div>\n
Bench: J Kapoor<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  J.D. Kapoor, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.5,40,191.80 on account of term loan of Rs.2,50,000\/-  and cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.25,000\/-.   Plaintiff is a bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 5 of 1970.  The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 2.  Defendant  No. 1 is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of laser type setting, word processing and computer service.   Defendant  No. 2 who is the sole proprietor of defendant  No. 1 approached the plaintiff at its Janpath Branch and requested the plaintiff bank vide his loan application dated 21.10.1988 to grant credit facilities of Rs.2.58 lacs (Rs. two lacs fifty eight thousand) under the term loan and of Rs.23,000\/- (Rs. Twenty three thousand eight hundred)  under cash credit hypothecating head, as financial assistance for purchase of computers, air conditioner, furniture and fixture and to install desk top publishing work station and also as working capital for the smooth running and development of his business.     The defendant  No. 2 also forwarded with his loan application the project report and other various documents  and gave assurances of bright future of their product in the market.   Vide his letter dated 3.3.1989 defendant  No. 2 reminded the plaintiff bank to grant credit facilities as early as possible.   He also offered the surety and guarantee of Sh. K.N. Khanna and Sh. K.C. Singhal.    Plaintiff sanctioned and granted term loan of Rs.2,50,000 and cash credit limit of Rs.25,000\/- in respect of articles of agreement, letters of hypothecation, demand promissory note, letter of continuity, agreement of hypothecation to secure demand cash credit were executed by defendant  No. 2 on behalf of defendant  No. 1.    Defendant  Nos. 3 and 4 in consideration of credit facility granted to defendant  No. 1 signed, executed and submitted a form of guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,75,000\/- plus interest, charges and other expenses as personal surety and guarantee in their individual  capacity for the repayment of the outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank, standing in the name of defendant  No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The defendants did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed to keep up their commitments and deliberately failed to remit\/repay\/adjust the debit balance\/outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank.     The plaintiff made repeated requests, sent reminder after reminder and its staff contacted the defendants personally for payment\/adjustments\/remitting of outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank but the defendants continuously defaulted and failed to liquidate the outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank.     Vide letter dated 12.3.1990 defendants made promises and commitments to liquidate the outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank in  a short time but  to no avail.    Defendant  No. 2 as proprietor of defendant  No. 1 signed, executed and handed over a letter of balance confirmation under the Term Loan Account on 30.9.1991 admitting the liability payable to the plaintiff bank to the tune of Rs.3,02,936.80 as on 30.9.1991 and a sum of Rs.7565.50 under the Cash Credit Account as on 30.9.1991 and again admitted the liability to the tune of  Rs.3,98,654.80  and Rs.10,455.50  respectively under two respective  heads as on 31.3.1993 by signing and executing a letter of balance confirmation.    Despite assurance and execution of the fresh documents defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank and constrained the plaintiff bank to serve a legal notice dated 14.1.1994 upon the defendants.    Despite service of legal notice, defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding dues.   Hence this suit.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Defendants were duly served with summons of the suit.    Defendant  No. 2 appeared in person on his behalf as well as defendant  No. 1.   On 24th August, 1995, defendant  No. 2 made a statement that he be permitted to liquidate the outstanding amount of the plaintiff bank in installments and undertook to pay Rs.2 lacs to the plaintiff bank within two months initially to which plaintiff bank did not have any objections.    However, defendant  No. 2 could not honour his commitment and sought time on 19th October, 1995.   Thereafter neither did he appear nor did any person appear on his behalf.    Similarly defendant  No. 3 did not appear despite service of summons of the suit.  As a consequence defendants 1 to 3 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 8.10.1998.\n<\/p>\n
 5.          Defendant  No. 4 alone contested the suit by filing written statement.    The main plank of the averments of defendant  No. 4 is that suit is barred by limitation as the form of guarantee was executed on 26.3.1989  for a sum of Rs.2,75,000\/- and  in 1993 fresh documents were executed between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 thereby superseding the documents executed earlier. It is further averred that the plaintiff has been grossly negligent in not pursuing the security of hypotheticated machineries and goods inasmuch as when the business could not run and the installments could not be paid by defendant  Nos. 1 and 2, plaintiff bank instead of proceeding against hypothecated machines and goods gave further facilities to defendants 1 and 2.   According to defendant  No. 4, the renewal or execution of any document dated 8.9.1993 was never done either with the consent or to the knowledge of defendant  No. 4 and without any notice to defendant  No. 4.     He has taken an alternative plea that the documents of guarantee etc  were signed by him when these were blank and signed at the instance of defendants 1 and 2 in a bonafide belief.     According to him, plaintiff Bank itself being guilty of delays, laches, lapses and negligence in securing recovery of the loan and not acting diligently as per terms of agreement inasmuch as no profit and loss accounts were submitted by defendants 1 and 2 after November, 1989, did not bother to see and ascertain the periodical financial position of defendants 1 and 2 nor periodical inspection of the hypothecated machines and goods was done nor perused.   It is also averred that defendant took all possible steps to see that the outstanding amount be paid and recovered and therefore produced defendant  No. 2 in person in court as well as moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC being IA 12791\/2000 on which injunction was granted against defendants 1 and 2  from transferring or alienating two properties.\n<\/p>\n
 6. As many as three witnesses were produced by the plaintiff bank.   None of them was cross-examined by defendant  No. 4.    These witnesses  have proved the aforesaid documents executed by defendants 1 and 2.    PW-1 Mr. N.K. Chatwal, Manager of plaintiff bank  proved the documents which are (i) confirmation  statement dated 30.9.1991 (Exhibit PW 1\/1 and PW 1\/2); (ii) balance confirmation statement dated 31.3.1993 (Exhibit PW 1\/4).    PW-2 Mr. D.P. Chandel who was Chief Officer in 1993 proved Articles of Agreement, Hypethecation deed, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Interest, Letter of Waiver and Letter of  Sole Proprietorship as these documents were duly executed by defendants 2 and 3 in his presence and are Exhibit PW 2\/1 to PW 2\/8.    Apart from this he also proved letter dated  9.11.1993 , legal notice served upon the defendants and  Statement of Account as Exhibit PW 2\/9, Exhibit PW2\/10 and Exhibit PW 2\/11 respectively.   The documents which were  executed and signed by defendants 1,2 and 3 and 4 in the year year 1989 were proved by PW-3, Mr.N.D.Wadhwa, Senior Manager of the plaintiff bank as PW 3\/1 to PW 3\/7.    However,  defendant  No. 4 examined himself as a sole witness.    His statement in brief was that “He  was called to sign as a witness to the documents executed by defendants 1 and 2 and that he signed the documents some time in March, 1989 and that some printed papers were brought in his presence and he was asked to sign them and   his signatures appear only on form of guarantee.”    According to him he signed it at the behest of brother-in-law of defendant  No. 2 who introduced him to them.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Vide order dated 8.10.1998, following issues were framed for determination:-\n<\/p>\n
 1. Whether the suit has been instituted and the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised person.  OPD  <\/p>\n
 2.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD  <\/p>\n
 3.Whether the loan documents were got signed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 from defendant  No. 4 in blank?  OPD  <\/p>\n
 4.Whether the signatures of defendant  No. 4 appearing in the loan documents were forged by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2? OPD  <\/p>\n
 5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants an amount of Rs.5,40,191.80 p? OPP  <\/p>\n
 6.If the aforesaid issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff, whether the defendants are jointly and severely liable for repayment of the aforesaid amount?\n<\/p>\n
 7.Whether the plaintiff is estopped in any manner from claiming the amount from the defendant  No. 4? If so, its effect? OPD  <\/p>\n
 8.Whether the loan documents signed by defendant  No. 4 got and\/or stood cancelled and\/or there was privity of contract between the defendant  No. 4 and the plaintiff?   OPD  <\/p>\n
 9.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for which period?  OPP  <\/p>\n
 10.Relief?\n<\/p>\n
 8. Issue  No. 1  <\/span><\/p>\n
  This issue is no more pressed and is decided in favor of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Issue  Nos. 2 to 9   <\/span><\/p>\n
  All these issues are inter-connected and inter-dependent in view of  defense of defendant  No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
 10. There is only one Form of Guarantee dated 22.3.1989  executed by defendant  Nos.  3 and 4 and thereafter no document was executed and the present suit was filed in 1994 i.e. after five years.  It is admitted case that on promise of defendant  Nos. 1 and 2 to liquidate the outstanding dues of plaintiff bank in short term, fresh documents were executed and facilities already provided were renewed on 8.9.1993.   The documents executed were Articles of Agreement for a sum of Rs.2.5 lac and letter of hypothecation in the sum of Rs.2.5 lacs, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Letter of Waiver, Agreement of hypothecation, Letter of agreed interest and undertaking and letter of sole proprietorship.    Admittedly no Form of Guarantee was got executed or signed by defendants 3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
 11. To show the liability of  Defendants 3 and 4 and the suit being within limitation, Mr. D.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn support from clauses 2 and 7 of Form of Guarantee executed by  defendants 3 and 4.     These are:- \n   \n\n  \"Clause 2  \n \n\n  \"It    is also agreed that any admission or acknowledgment in writing by the principal debtor of the amount of indebtedness of the principal debtor or otherwise in relation to the subject matter of this guarantee or any judgment or award obtained by you against the principal debtor shall be binding on me\/us and I\/we accept the correctness of any statement of account served on the principal debtor which is duly certified by any Manager or officer of the Bank and the same shall be binding and conclusive as against me\/us also, and I\/we further agree that in making an acknowledgement or making a payment he shall be treated as my\/our duly authorised agent for purpose of Indian Limitation Act, of 1963.\" \n \n\n Clause 7  \n \n\n This guarantee shall not be revoked by me\/us and shall remain in force till all the amounts due and payable to you by the principal(s) are paid up in full inclusive of interest, charges etc.,    I\/We further specifically agree that this guarantee shall continue to remain in force and I\/We shall continue to be liable there under for all the amounts due and payable to you by the principal\/s even though the principal\/s has\/have\/not renewed the documents  and even though the amounts due from the principal\/s gets time barred and you cannot recover the same from principal\/s by filing a suit or any legal proceeding against the principal\/s.\"  \n \n\n 12. According to Mr. Mehta this clause suo moto extended  the period of limitation  the moment defendants 1 and 2 had executed the documents acknowledging the liability in the year 1993 and therefore the plea of suit being barred by limitation is not available to defendant  No. 4. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 13.      On the contrary,  Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for defendant  No. 4 has contended that all these documents were executed at the time of sanction of the loan facility and cash credit facility  in the year 1989 and those  very documents were executed on 8.9.1993 also except Form of Guarantee.   It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to get the form of guarantee executed from defendant  Nos. 3 and 4 in the year 1993 when the aforesaid facilities were renewed and fresh documents were executed.   The very fact that documents were got executed from defendants 1 and 2 at the time of grant of sanction were again renewed and executed on 8.9.1993 shows that it was nothing but a renewal of term loan facility and cash credit facility.\n<\/p>\n
 14.      There is force in the contention of Mr. Sharma.   Had the plaintiff intended  to obtain acknowledgment of liability as on 8.9.1993, execution of a  letter of acknowledgment was sufficient and to get these documents executed afresh from defendant  Nos. 1 and 2 shows that it was renewal of aforesaid facilities.    Nothing prevented the plaintiff to get fresh Form of  Guarantee executed from defendants 3 and 4.   Recalcitrant and indifferent  attitude of the plaintiff Bank is demonstrated from the circumstance that  in spite of  the fact that defendants 1 and 2  did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed to keep up their commitments,    they were again extended the facilities in 1993 by way of execution of relevant documents by them.\n<\/p>\n
 15. As regards clause 2 it relates to facilities granted vide document executed on 22.3.1989 and the renewal of the facility again in 1993 without any notice to defendants 3 and 4 or without getting fresh form of guarantee executed from  defendant  No. 4 absolved defendants 3 and 4  from their liability flowing from the document executed by them on 22.3.1989.    If the contention of counsel for the plaintiff is accepted it would mean that defendants 3 and 4 shall remain liable for all times to come in spite of the fact that after four years, plaintiff got other set of documents executed from defendants 1 and 2 either by way of renewal of the facility.     This was neither the intention nor was the purpose of clause 2  of Guarantee Form.\n<\/p>\n
 16.       Similarly clause 7 does not help the plaintiff inasmuch as it is not only  against public policy but against the law and principles of natural justice as defendant  Nos. 3 and 4 who had executed the documents at the time of  furnishing Form of Guarantee  in 1989 shall be liable for the liability of defendant  Nos. 1 and 2 even if the amount due from them gets time barred and is not recoverable from defendants 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
 17.      If a party is left with no remedy to recover the loan from the Principal Debtor it cannot recover it from the Guarantor also as the liability of the Guarantor emanates and flows from the liability of Principal Debtor.     If claim against Principal Debtor gets time barred so does the claim against Guarantor.     The liabilities are joint and several and cannot be segregated or bifurcated much less for the purpose of limitation.     If the documents executed by Principal Debtor towards cash credit facility or loan term facility cannot be invoked on account of claim of the creditor being time barred,    the document executed by the Guarantor for the same reason also cannot be executed.    Had the plaintiff bank any intention to get the renewal of facility secured by way of guarantee it was incumbent upon the plaintiff bank to get Form of Guarantee also renewed  as other documents were got executed from defendants 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
 18. Thus from any angle we may examine the claim of the plaintiff against defendants 3 and 4 it is not only barred by limitation but also is not maintainable in view of  plaintiff’s  failure to get Form of Guarantee renewed  when cash credit facilities were renewed and fresh set of documents were got executed and signed by defendants 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
 19. As a consequence, suit against  defendants 3 and 4 fails.     However, suit of the plaintiff against defendants 1 and 2 succeeds on the basis of documents which were executed on 8-9-1993 and particularly the acknowledgment of liability as well as statement made by defendant  No. 2 on 24.8.1995 in the court.     \n \n\n 20. In the result, suit is decreed for Rs.5,40,191.80 with pendente lite and future interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rest till its realisation against defendant  Nos. 1 and 2 only.    Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly. \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2003 IVAD Delhi 237, 104 (2003) DLT 976, 2003 (69) DRJ 56 Author: J Kapoor Bench: J Kapoor JUDGMENT J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.5,40,191.80 on account of term loan […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCentral Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003 - 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\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-08T15:37:31+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-08T15:37:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2262,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003\",\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-08T15:37:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003 - 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\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-08T15:37:31+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003","datePublished":"2003-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-08T15:37:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003"},"wordCount":2262,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003","name":"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-08T15:37:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-systems-softwares-and-ors-on-14-may-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central Bank Of India vs Systems & Softwares And Ors. on 14 May, 2003"}]},{"@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\/111981","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=111981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}