{"id":115370,"date":"1988-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988"},"modified":"2015-12-01T21:23:58","modified_gmt":"2015-12-01T15:53:58","slug":"bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988","title":{"rendered":"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: ILR 1989 KAR 2506<\/div>\n
Author: R Jois<\/div>\n
Bench: R Jois<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 Rama Jois, J. <\/p>\n
1.  The petitioner M\/s. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd., has presented this petition, praying for quashing the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter for short called the ‘Act’), dismissing the respondent’s appeal and confirming the order of the Competent Authority and the Estate Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises belonging to the first respondent-State Bank of Mysore.\n<\/p>\n
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follow: The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a multi-storeyed building belonging to the first respondent State Bank of Mysore. The premises was given on lease to the petitioner for a period of 15 years with effect from 1-7-1970. The period of lease came to an end with effect from 1-7-1985. Thereafter a notice was issued by the Estate Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, appointed under Section 4 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed against it. The petitioner filed objections to the said notice. Thereafter the Estate Officer proceeded to pass an order of eviction against the petitioner rejecting the pleas raised by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner presented an appeal before the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who is the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has presented this petition.\n<\/p>\n
3. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has urged the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
(1) The premises is not a public premises within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act;\n<\/p>\n
(2) The petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant of the premises;\n<\/p>\n
(3) The Bank being an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot seek to evict the petitioner unreasonably or arbitrarily;\n<\/p>\n
(4) The action of the Bank in instituting proceedings against the petitioner is discriminatory as no action has been taken by the first respondent against several other tenants;\n<\/p>\n
(5) The Estate Officer, being an Officer of State Bank of Mysore, is a biased person and therefore could not function as an Enquiry Officer;\n<\/p>\n
(6) The petitioner’s fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India is violated by the impugned proceedings; and<\/p>\n
(7) The proceedings for eviction is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
(8) The action for eviction was unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
4. In support of the first contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that State Bank of Mysore was an Independent Corporate body constituted under the provisions of State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 and therefore the premises cannot be regarded as a public premises as defined under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
5. In fact, as pointed out by the Appellate Authority, in Its order this objection was not at all raised before the original Authority. Even so the Appellate Authority has considered it in great detail and has rejected it. The expression Public Premises is defined by Section 2(e) of the Act which reads:\n<\/p>\n
“Public Premises” means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes –\n<\/p>\n
(1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of –\n<\/p>\n
(i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fiftyone per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and<\/p>\n
(ii) any Corporation not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local Authority established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government; and <\/p>\n
(2) in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi-\n<\/p>\n
(i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or any Municipal Committee or notified area. Committee, and<\/p>\n
(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority.”\n<\/p>\n
As can be seen from the above definition, the premises belonging to any Corporation established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government would be a public premises within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act. The State Bank of Mysore is established under the provisions of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959. The preamble to the Act reads:\n<\/p>\n
 “An Act to provide for the formation of certain Government or Government associated Banks as subsidiaries of the State Bank of India and for the Constitution, management and control of the subsidiary Banks so formed, and for matters connected therewith, or incidental thereto.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 3 empowers the Central Government to Establish the State Bank of Mysore and a few other State Banks. That Section reads:\n<\/p>\n
Establishment of new Banks – With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, there shall be constituted the following new Banks, namely –\n<\/p>\n
(a) State Bank of Bikaner;\n<\/p>\n
(b) the State Bank of Indore;\n<\/p>\n
(c) Omitted;\n<\/p>\n
(d) the State Bank of Mysore;\n<\/p>\n
(e) the State Bank of Patiala;\n<\/p>\n
(f) the State Bank of Travancore  <\/p>\n
and different dates may be specified for different new Banks.\n<\/p>\n
6. As can be seen from the preamble, the Act was enacted for establishment of Government\/Government Associated Banks as subsidiaries of the State Bank of India and inter alia for their management and control. It is by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act, the Bank was established. A brief survey of the provisions of the Act would show that the entire management of the subsidiary Bank is regulated by Union Legislation and that both direct control over the subsidiary Banks by Government of India as also indirect control of Government of India on them through the State Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India is provided for. Some of them   are:   The   Central   Government   has   the   power   to change   the   name   of    a   subsidiary    Bank   (Section   3A). The   Central   Government   has   the   power   to  decide   the place   where   the   Head   Office   has   to   situate   (Section 5). The  Central   Government  has the power  to constitute a   Tribunal   for   the   purpose   of   the   Act   (Section   15). The   State   Bank   has   the   power   to   give   directions  and instructions   to   a  subsidiary   Bank   which   are  binding  on them   (Section    24).   The   composition   of    the   Board   of Directors   is  specified   in  Section  25  itself,  among  whom one  is to  be  nominated  by  the   Reserve  Bank,  not   more than   five   by   the   State   Bank   of   India   and   one   by  the Central Government (Section 25). The Central Government has  the   power   to   f ix   the   term   of   office   of   Directors appointed  under  Clause  (a)  and  Clause  (b)  of  Sub-section (1)  of   Section   25  (Section   26).   The  State   Bank  has  the power    to   appoint    Managing    Director   of    a   Subsidiary Bank (Section 29). A subsidiary Bank is required to furnish annual   returns   to   the   Central   Government  (Section  43). The Central Government has the power regarding Liquidation (Section  57).  The  Central Government has the power to   make   Rules  for   purposes  of   the  Act  and  the  State Bank   has   the   power   to   make   regulations   (Sections   62 and 63),  which  are  binding on  a  subsidiary  Bank. Therefore, beyond doubt, the State Bank of Mysore is a Corporation   established   under   a   Central   Act   and   controlled by  the  Central   Government,   and  the  premises  belonging to   it   is   a   Public   Premises   as   defined   in   Section   2(c) of   the   Act,   and   the   contention   of   the   petitioner   to the contrary is untenable.\n<\/p>\n
7. Regarding the second question, the contention raised is that a notice of termination had been issued in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy of the petitioner with effect from 30-6-1985 and not with the end of 1-7-1985 and therefore the notice of termination is Invalid and consequently the petitioner could not be regarded as unauthorised occupant.\n<\/p>\n
8. There is no dispute that the lease was for the period of 15 years commencing from 1-7-1970. Therefore, in accordance with the lease deed, the tenancy of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 1-7-1985. If only the termination of the tenancy of the petitioner was sought to be brought about some time in between 1-7-1970 and 1-7-1985, the requirement of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had to be compiled with. Even without issue of any notice the lease in favour of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 1-7-1985. Further, it is clear from the notice Issued by the State Bank of Mysore, it had decided against the continuing of the tenancy of the petitioner. In respect of a premises belonging to a Corporation, the tenancy could be continued only by an express decision of the Corporation to continue the tenancy. In this case the Bank had decided against continuing the tenancy. Therefore the petitioner became an unauthorised occupant Immediately after the expiry of the lease period. The question as to whether a person can be treated as a tenant holding over, even if the rent has been received only, was the subject matter for decision in SHAMAIAH GOWDA v. SHIMOGA CITY MUNICIPA-LITY . In that case, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that once a period of lease came to an end, even the payment of rent and its receipt by some Officer of the Corporation would not make a person tenant holding over, in the absence of any express decision of the Corporate body to continue the tenancy and receive the rent. In the present case, since the Bank had decided not to continue the tenancy, the petitioner became an unauthorised occupant on the termination of the lease and therefore the contention that the petitioner did not become an unauthorised occupant is not tenable.\n<\/p>\n
9. Next contention of the petitioner is that the Bank is an Authority under Article 12 and hence it cannot evict the petitioner unreasonably or arbitrarily.\n<\/p>\n
The State Bank of Mysore is a State as defined under Article 12 is not at all in dispute. The question is whether the action of State Bank of Mysore in taking eviction proceedings against the petitioner is violative of any of the fundamental right of the petitioner. I fail to see as to how the action can be treated as unreasonable or arbitrary. The lease was given for a period of fifteen years. It is only after the termination of the lease, in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner becoming an unauthorised occupant, action for his eviction has been taken under the provisions of the Act. In fact the provisions of the Act are meant for taking action against a person in unauthorised occupation of a public premises after the expiry of the lease period. Taking action against unauthorised occupant cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
10. The fourth contention of the petitioner is that action for eviction taken by the Bank is discriminatory for the reason that there are some other tenants whose period of tenancy had expired and against whom no action had been taken. The question whether a tenancy should be continued or not is a matter for the Bank to decide. It depends upon the requirement of the Bank and other relevant consideration. This is, therefore, a matter for consideration by the State Bank of Mysore and does not constitute a ground for interfering with the order made by the original and Appellate Authorities.\n<\/p>\n
11. The fifth ground is that the Estate Officer being an Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, couId not have been appointed as an Enquiry Officer as he suffers from bias. This very question has been the subject matter for consideration in INDIAN BANK v. BLAZE & CENTRAL (P) LTD . It is pointed out in the said decision that when by or under an Act of Legislature, the power to take action is conferred on a particular Officer, there is no scope for Invoking the principles of Natural Justice, for, it is settled position in law that the principles of natural justice only supplement the law but do not supplant it.\n<\/p>\n
12. The sixth ground is that the petitioner is deprived of his right to carry on business and therefore the eviction is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. There is no substance in this contention. The State Bank of Mysore, by asking the petitioner to vacate the premises has not prevented the petitioner from carrying on its business. It has asked the petitioner to vacate the premises as the petitioner had become an unauthorised occupant. The petitioner is at liberty to do business in any other premises.\n<\/p>\n
13. The seventh ground is that the eviction amounts to violation of Article 300-A. Right to property by way of lease which the petitioner had secured was only for a period of 15 years and that right had come to an end by efflux of time and he is being evicted only in accordance with law and not otherwise than in accordance with law. Therefore there is no violation of Article 300-A.\n<\/p>\n
14. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Bank was unreasonable. In support of this, he invited my attention to para-3 of the objections of the petitioner filed before the Estate Officer. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
“The    petitioner    is    seeking    eviction    of the  Respondent  on  the  ground   that  the  premisesin   question   is   required   for   expansion   of   its business.   It   is   submitted   that   the   petitioner has   sufficient   accommodation   for   its   business. It  has  recently   put  up  three   storeyed  building within   the   compound   of   its   Head   Office   where the   premises   in   question   is   situated,    facing Hospital     Road,     Bangalore.     The     newly     built accommodation   is   more   than   sufficient   for   the petitioner’s    expansion    of    its    business.    The said  newly  built  premises  has  in  fact  not  been occupied   in   full.   Apart   from   that,   the   entire5th  and   6th   floor   of   the   premises   in  question is also completely vacant which is also suitable for the expansion of the business of petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner also owns two more buildings in the same compound; one is Garudachar Building facing the Avenue Road and another stone structure building facing the Avenue Road, wherein the petitioner is running its business. The petitioner is, therefore, not making use of even the available accommodation and therefore, no purpose would be served by evicting the respondent from the premises. The petitioner’s demand is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and not bona fide.”\n<\/p>\n
Similar question has been considered by the Division Bench in the Indian Bank case? The question of bona fide use of the owner of the public premises or hardship that is likely to be caused to the tenant by eviction are matters which are not relevant to the proceedings under the Act. As pointed out in the Indian Bank case, the only two grounds which are required to be considered by the original Authority as well as Appellate Authority are (i) whether the premises in question is a public premises and (ii) the person in occupation had become an unauthorised occupant. If these two questions are answered in the affirmative no further question arises for consideration by those authorities. Thus the last contention is also devoid of any merit.\n<\/p>\n
15. In the result, I make the following:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988 Equivalent citations: ILR 1989 KAR 2506 Author: R Jois Bench: R Jois ORDER Rama Jois, J. 1. The petitioner M\/s. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd., has presented this petition, praying for quashing the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988 - 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\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-01T15:53:58+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\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-01T15:53:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2603,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988\",\"name\":\"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-01T15:53:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988 - 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\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-01T15:53:58+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\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988","datePublished":"1988-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-01T15:53:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988"},"wordCount":2603,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988","name":"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-01T15:53:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-swadeshi-stores-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-1-december-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay Swadeshi Stores vs State Bank Of Mysore on 1 December, 1988"}]},{"@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\/115370","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=115370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}