{"id":117150,"date":"2010-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-31T14:43:01","modified_gmt":"2018-12-31T09:13:01","slug":"ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
 \n\nOF THE 'BANK SR.I_.,I'.SHAMSUNDER\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED TI-IIS THE ISTH DAY OF NOvEMEERI.';;Oi\u00bbOfr':PM\nPRESENT  I \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUS'I'IC\u00a7.'.--AJIT  \nTHE HON'BLE MRS.  \n\nRFA.No.74S\/2oo4i_CYI\/W._595\/2604., \n\nRFA.NO.746[2004\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nING VYSYA I:'iAN.K'1~.\"I'D\"*- .  ' - I'\n\nREGD BAN_RING\"COMPAAP{_\"' \"  \nIIAvING'I'I'S' CORPORATE' 'OFFICE\n\nAT NO.72, ST. \u00a3VI\u00a3IRKS'ROI\u00a2\\D'I*--.. ' -\nBANGALORE.-- b60'OO~1 __   ..\n\nREP BY ITS-POWER OE'ATI*ORNEY HOLDER\nAND BRANCH~.MANAvGER. PRINCIPAL OFFICER\n\n.. . APPELLANT\n\nIIn.A[By.IAS'1*i.: FOR M\/S KHETTY AND COMPANY)\n\nAN]\u00a7:\"~._\n\n A VAISLIIENTERPRENEURS PVT LTD\n\nI--> \"\n\n.. ' ' 20, ITI ANCILLARY\n= ._INDUSTRIAL ESTATE\n; BANGALORE -- 560 048\nF REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING\nDIRECTOR, SRI.J.T PRAKASH\n\nSRI.J T PRAKASH\n\nADULT, MANAGING DIRECTOR\nVASU ENTERPRENEURS\n\nPRIVATE LTD., B-20. ITI ANCILLARY\n\n\n\n_ PRAKASH  A\n\n   ADV.)\n\n \n\nINDUSTRIAL ESTATE\nBANGALORE W 560 048\n\n... lRESPOND}jZNfE'S\n\n{By Sri: R SHYAMA, ADV.)\n\nTHIS RFA ES FELED U\/S. 96 OF CPC AGA_i:1\\ISTV.TBLE \nJUDGMENT AND DECREE DT..--12'.~1._O4  LBASSED' AN E'\nO.S.NO.6134\/95 ON THE FILE \nCML JUDGE. BANGALORE, AG_A1NST_THAT BO.RT1ON ROLE V\n\nTHE FINDING THAT NO MORTGAGE WAS -CREATED BY\nTHE 2ND DEFENDANT __{2ND REiSPONDENT'*--HERf3IN] IN\nRESPECT OF THE PITA1N'AIT.iSCHED\u00a7JI;E2~--1?ROPERTY.\nRFA.N0.595[2004    \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nVASU ENTE-RPRISF\u00a3:'..PVfI\"'LTD. ' -\nB-20, ITI AN(3--IALLERY ~ .!N'D__U'{~E~TRIAL\nESTATE, BA-N1GAVLO--RE--4B \n\nREP BY ITS MANAGI'NG'DI'RECTOR\n\n.. . APPELLANT\n\n _ 1. '*THE._1v'vx<S9y'A BANK LTD\n\nREGISTERED BANKING COMPANY\nA' _HAv1NG ITS CORPORATE OFFICE\nV 'AT No.72, STMARKS ROAD\n'*~.B.ANGALORE~56O 001, BRANCH AT\nEBRAI-IIM SAI-HB STREET\nBANGALORBSGO 001\nREP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER\n\n\u00a7xJ\n\nSR1 J T PRAKASPI\nEVI.AN.AG1.NG DIRIEZCTOR\nVASU ENTERPRISES\nB~2(), IT} ANCIALLERY\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\nINDUSTRIAL ESTATE\nBAN GALORE--56O O48\n\n \n\n{RESPONDENTS 1 81 2 ARE SERVED)\n\nTHIS RFA IS FILED U\/S  \nJUDGMENT' AND DEGREE _V 12. 1 .04' ON Tr~::<.*.2' F:.ND1INosV . i'\n\nON THE ISSUE Nos. 2,  5  fe' PASSED IN\nO.S.NO.6}.34\/95 ON  FILE  x\\fII"*ADDL. CITY\nCIVIL JUDGE, BANGA:3\u00a7oRE_,_ f{1,C.c'i\u00a51--Vei,';iN,io;.1_e, ANSWERING\nISSUE Nos. 2, A3 & 6'ApAif'ani< 't{:b'i'-'al'i'i:_m\nSahib Street Branch and ;__tender:ed:\ufb01avibankers ellequel dated\n25.8.1992 drawn on Midizmlib\u00e9:;i\u00a7Vj.,I{te'"--%\u00a7;;s;4s,V Coldharbour\nlane, Carnberwel], 'London;"'Se E39'   29,000 U.S.\nDollars in     along with his\ncovering    the plaintiffs to\ndiscountthe_'s_aild'f'veh.edele  and authorising the bank to\nkeep the  of the company as fixed\n\ndeposittfor _a period loflnine inonths. The defendant informed\n\n the pbanlk tl"iat'"i.n futurel,M1'n case of need, they may also take\n\nlloantonl deposit. The defendants assure the\n\n  plaini..i_fis that transaction is genuine and safe and the\n\n Ciieque tenlci-ered by him was also genuine and was sure to\n\n   for which copies of the following" letters were\n\nV' .___"prod%'ueed:\n\n1) letter No.AY\/2023\/O91 dated 23.3.1992 of\n\nAyoola Cornmereial linterprises of Nigeria.\n\naddressed to the first defendant.\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nii] Letter dated 21.4.1992 of the first defendant.\n\naddressed to the said Ayoola Commercial\n\nenterprises.\n\niii) Proforma invoice dated 21.3.1992  \n\ndefendant. addressed    \n\nCommercial Enterprises. l\niv) Letter giving  descijip-tjilon  the\nequipment: agreed t.o''be: .\nV) Letter No.A$f\/'a_o2f::.!hl9lj':  -.\u00a716.6.1992 of\nAyo.o1a&lGQmrnercia:l addressed to the\n    l \n _ -the second defendant made\na representatliorriv  of the plaintif\ufb01bank that the\n\ntransa'cti1'o:n was"genni11e'a1id the pay order which was issued\n\nwas also""g:en_n'i1ie and sought for discount. of the said cheque\n\nand{asA"th.e'*pllaintiff branch does not deal in Foreigii exchange\n\nheat;-e_._, t'he*rna'nager of the plaintiff bank forwarded the said\n\nif  'i;tstrt1rnei__1t'. to K.G.Road Branch which was dealing in foreign\n\nll  l'e:A<c}.i_ali\u00a5;ge along with the covering letter dated 28.7. .1992.\n\n4. The said i11strument was discounted at the\n\n K.G.Road Branch accordingly and forwarded a sum of\n\nRs.8,1l.928\/~ being the exchange value of U.S.do11ars\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n29.000 to the plaintiff Branch on 29.7.1992. In the\n\nmeantime, the said instrument was sent to the Midiaijd\n\nGroup. London. but however. it received a 1ep1;i::':"."J'1-\u00abgm\n\nMidland Group, London. that it did not have a branc1v1:V'a:t0the'  9\n\naddress printed in the instrument.\n\n5. Indeed it is to be 1iotice'd..:Vt.hast \n\ninstrument was sent by the *p_1a.int.iffa'ba9rik HD.3?IL0\n\nCourier Service and the said iiistriirnent was lost. in transit.\nDuring this period. the Vfirdsit de_fen--da1it__'t.hi*ough the second\ndefendant contacted the pA1.ain_ti.ff b1'anc'h'vto""oipeii an account\n\nin the 11arne._o--f tde\u00a7er1'dai'it-'with a copy of resolution of\nthe board o\u00a3pdirectors'""odn 992 permitting the company\n\nto open; an acco'un_t'andV'a11ow the operation of the account\n\n   defendant as Chairman and Managing\n\n  defendant--company. It is the case of the\n\n p1ainii__ff  said amount of Rs.8,11.928\/~ was invested\n\n AA tlirededfixed deposit amounting to Rs.1,i1,928\/~.\n\n0  p9.iQ0s.'2..39',OOO\/~ and Rs.4.67,000\/--. Indeed having regard t.o\n\n  overdraft I"aciIity provided by the plaintiff to the\n\n:.VVd\u20acf\u20aci1d8.I"itS. a sum of Rs.4.67.000\/~ was drawn and made\n\nuse of by the defendants. Since the pay" order which. was\n\ndiscounted by the piaintiiff to faciIit:ate the defendants in\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\ntiransacting their business with the Nigerian company and\n\nultimately found that. the said branch was not in existence,\n\nhence. in the circumstances. they were compelled to reV'ei9se \n\nthe entries. It is the case of the plaintiff that  t'ore'r-pgri V'\n\nexchange of the plaintiff bank was una-ble--t'.o get  \n\nof the said discounted instrun1ent";in.sp"ite \n\ncorrespondence with the   wthe\nplaintiff bank received  .adVispe....t:rorn"'the l\\\/'Ii'dl'\u00abf11f1dA,.EG2'ou;)\nacivising that there was   at the\naddress printed onvihe   and that the\nsaid transaction   tihletiransaction is a part\nof large f17[t\u00a71L1(?l  in USA. Canada, Europe,\n\nfor supply 'C11: goodsato that no goods should\n\n=be shipped agaainsttsucvh documents as no payment is\n\n received. 2 \n\n   the case of the plaintiff is that as on the\n\n lt*J_tyien'   was filed, the outstanding balance of\n\nV was to be paid on account of overdraft.\n\nit"luv.a'?IThLrss;_.the\u00b0"present suit is filed for recovery of the said\n\n_' an1ti'r;t:;' Incideratally. it is also stated that suitable action is\n\nf'\n\n 'i:al+;.en as against. the courier service inasmuch as the courier %\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n-3-\n\nservice had informed that the said instrument was lost in\n\ntransit.\n7. The deiendants entered appeaiance and\n\ncontested the proceedings. Indeed the defendants'vwo.1il~d\n\nadmit. to the extent that they had given the instr\ufb01nientt:\n\nthe pay order to be discounted. But howeveia..:the'=.n1'aiiiit \n\ncontention is that the amount was    .defen'dants; it\n\non the overdraft facility as against \ufb01xeddeposit,'\"Hence, _t\u00a7..hel\n\nquestion of satisfying the suit clai';:n'w_ouldl  arise? They\nwould also contend t.l1at't__h'e._ defendants  not made use of\n\nthe aniot_111t._wt1icli.wast dis.co'u__n'ted. The sum and substance\nof the detence is one of' the'----denia1 and they are not liable to\n\npay  ainountnllinsofar as creation of the equitable\n\n 'deposit of the title deeds, they would take\n\nAspec.i'fic1  that the said title deeds were deposited\n\nwiththe p12ii.n.t'it\"f bank for safe custody. Hence. it cannot be\n\nit said t1r1at:\u00ab.t..'i'1e loan was availed by the defendants by creating\n\n y.'2in\"eqti--it..able mortgage by depositing the: title deeds. Thus,\n\n.s  would contiend that they are not liable to satisfy the suit\n\n..l'claim. Indeed. they would claim that. the amotint, wllich  in\n\nfixed deposit: is their money inasmuch as the said money is\n\nI3ot.hiI1g but the a.1'nou1'1tl which is realised by discounting the\n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n \n\ninstrurnent. On the basis of this spacious reading, the\n\nlearned trial judge has framed the following issues:\n\ni] Whether the overdraft. facility reIe1'red.~\u00abtoj\nplaint secured by creation of  K\nproperty described in theVplaiVnt scli'ed'tile?f\"V V V\n\nii) Whether the plaintiff bank iSV.iliai)l'e,e \ncompound interest. at t11e'rate.Vclaim.edV in respected\nof the overdraft lfaeiiities A'aVailedl..Vby;._V\"ihVe \"1131\ndefendant company'? V' l'  l I' V\n\niii) Whether the '3i'ntere_:slt'Hcaie:tU.ati.on byvthevvbarik is\n\ncorrect'? _ V V _ V V\niv] Whether \"siiit  fnialintainable as\n      \nv]  -------- -=v\\?\\fh'et'h..eii::A:t.l1e\"defendants are entitled for set-off as\n\nV ._c-lavini%::d72 _ __\nvi)  VVW'lr1et'ner fth.e\"plai::t'ift' is entitled to the recovery\nthe suit claim'?  \n\n  'IVV'he llearnedv trial judge having regard to the\n\nV':_Vevid'enee..V_let;~'inl\"'by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants\n\n ..ciec'tin1er1tary, was of the view that the plaintiff\n\n- is ei1t4itleC\u00a3Al'or decree in part inasrnnch as the decreed suit\n\nfor a_.Vst.11ii of Rs.4.34.000\/- with agreed rate of interest at\n\n c~__1\u00a74...5%':p.a. compounded quarteriy from the date of such\n\n.. utilisation. of the faci.Iity till realisation of the entire amount\n\n\" from the clefenclaiits jointly and severally. M\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n-13.\n\n \n\n9. During the course of the trial, two witnesses\nwere examined on behalf of the bank i.e., PW1 the Chief\n\nManager and PW2 the Manager of the plaintiff bank. __.O1i\n\nbehalf of the defent:iant's._ the second defendant'\n\nexamined as l)Wl and on behalf of the plaintiff' \n\ndoeument,s relating to the transaction ,V'J\u20ac1'__C n1ai*l\u00a7e'd=aft. EXs.P-- \n\n1 to P-43 and on behalf of the defeii.da;.its~';E2{e..D~  \n\nwere marked.\n\n10. Learned eourisel _f0?1_'   submits that\n\nthe appeal of the banli isconfined'-only\"to \"extent. denying\n\nthe relief of  by selling the mortgaged\nproperty.  cloeumertts i.e., EX.P--37 the\ncommtifnieation \"erleatin\u00e9V'alzrno1*tgage as well as Exs.P--23 to\n g V   his veontention that. the property in question\n equitable mortgage by depositing the title\n\nf  deelda.\n\n  learned counsel for the defendant. would submit\n defendants are not liable to satisfy the suit claim.\n\n'   would submit that the overdraft facility was given to the\n Hdefendaiits in View of the fixed deposit. He st.ibn1i.t.s that the\n\nsaid amount: belongs to the defendant. llenee, the question\n\n  \n\n-_.,,.-.\u00ab.\u00ab \u00bb..;.--_\u00a2\u00a7..r\u00a2.w-vr  \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\nof the defendants satisfying the suit claim would not a'r'i'se.\ninsofar as the deposit. of title deeds is Concerned,  \nsubmit with reference to Ex.D-1 that the \ndeposited with them for safe custody.'~iliiehcetl \ncommunication cannot. be made    \ndefendant had Created an equita._bileV_moi*.tgage.by._:AdVeposi'ts:of\ntitle deeds. Having given__ our apmziloiis'eoi1siderati.on:\u00a7to the\nabove submissions, the  arise for\nconsideration: \" h  l V J\ni]   was justified in\nH   for by the plaintiff to\nM  by bringing the mortgage\nA l ' property.'  \u00e9 ' \n ~  judgment and decree passed by the\nV' dd 3-hlearned judge decreeing the suit as prayed\n\nV ' fiifor eanjbe sustained\n\ni2.\".yV__A'1i'o sustain the judgment\": and decree passed by\n\n  i!.ear\"ned Trial Judge and also to examine whether the\n\n ..,.'p'lain}tifi\" is entitled to recover the amount by bringing the\n\n  __'4n1oi'i:ga1ge property to sale the evidence of the plaintiff as well\n\n \n\n the defendant. is required 10 be considered. \/W\n\n\/\n\n\n\n \n\n13. PVV..1 is the Chief Manager of the LB. Street\n\nBranch of Vysya Bank. He was working as such from\".\n\nto 12.5.93. He would depose in his evidence thatgofi  V'\n\nsecond defendant had tendered foreigri' ~eurre_ncy4pay o1'de.r \n\nfor U.S. Dollars 29.000\/-- drawn on\u00b0=Mia['1aadtieg\ufb01iggv \n\nLondon. He would also reite1\"ai:e\"\"-the \nrespondent requested them  'tithe  for\ncollection to payee bank   wide express\ncourier service agency  th,e_  in Fixed\nDeposit in their    the perusal of\nthe evidence     what has been\nstated   state that the first defendant\nhad asked t_he:jn  'discounted proceeds of the\n\ninstrument inua Fixed tjeposit for nine months. The KI}.\n\n .Road'\"brati'(:h'\"'had gitfeinfthem inter branch transfer credit\n\nadvicge of  \/ W and the said amount was kept in the\n\nfixed the name of first defendant. Indeed the crux\n\nf\"--.\u00ab.._oi.T,the evidence of PW.1 is as to the overdraft facilities which\n\n   _znfailed by defendants 1 and 2.. In this regard he would\n\n that on 24.8.92 he granted overdraft iimit of\n\n _ ;Rs.3.00.000\/~ secured by the fixed deposit receipts EXP22.\n\n \n\nI:3X.P.23 is the application cum lien, 21 letter for the advance\n\nof said deposit. It is signed by the second defendant. on\ufb02\n\n\/\n4----j:\/\n\n\n\n \n\n , hoxve\ufb01er, _ the saidl\"'doc..u\u00ab111.ent\n\n  \n_ from  their .' \ufb01ioreign\n\n -separate fixed deposits.\n\n \n\nbehalf of the first defendant. and EX.P.24 is the copyhlloft the\n\nboard resolution of the first defendant conipanyw\n\n \n\n-. \n\nwould state that the limit was enhanced to  -\"on \n\nthe security of two fixed deposit:'receipts.'--; \n\napplication cum lien letter for adVance'~againstjgsaid \n\nPW.l would further depose \n\nby Midland Group which is the\"'controlIing otfic'e  Midland\n\nBank. London. addressedytol'  bank at KG.\nRoad. stating that   Branch at the\n\naddress noticed:  ' l\n\nA is truelthat during the course of\n\nevidence'-theyre was\u00ab.serilous\"-obgection by the learned counsel\n\nfor the detendantp  the said document. But\nwas marked inasmuch as the\nthe View that it was not the photocopy, but it is\n\nan originall   that as it may, the amount was remitted\n\nexchange bank to the tune of\n\n. R:s:8r,s1'_l,S3lV;?;8\/- and the said amount was invested in three\n\nHe would also state that as against:\n\n ' 'thelsaid \ufb01xed deposit certain facilities were provided by them\n\nit to the defendant and the defendant: has availed the same.\n\nPie would also depose that the amount was treated as non-\n\nperforming amount since the defendant. did not come\n\nthe 1ett~e1fdat'ed  written\n\nit\/'\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n-14-\n\nforward to pay the amount which was due towards the\noverdraft account. PW.1 was oross~examined extensively,\n\nbut'. however we find from the evidence that noth---ing\n\ndetriment to t.he interest. of the plaintiff has been \n\nfact a perusal of the evidence would disclose t,l'1atj'~\u00ab'rnostl.oii'\n\nstatements made by PW.1 in the oo:;irse\"ol'l'1'ts evijden-i:e'hasVd7..\n\nbeen Confirmed.\n\n15. PW.2 was working  Chief \nRoad branch of Vysya bank between': tl9\"9__1-1994'.\"'  would\n\nonce again reiterate that the b'aiik'ers  was sent to\n\nthem for \u00a3:'o31a;\u00a7i;;:on\"\u00a7anc1'-tije sarne\"'was discounted and the\nsaid amount_ them to the plaintiff branch.\n\nHe would refer to the yzivrllottrbs documents referable to the said\n\n __nan1Aety.....F_1X,.P.28, the office copy of the letter\n\n dated' 111$.' Vl'{):5'\u00a3t?.\"'addressed to the Midland Bank and EX.P.29\n\nthe ICttterlol'yj*l\\\/tijdland Bank informing them that there is no\n\n N1idlan..d:'Ba.nxk addressed in the letter and the said pay order\n\n 'the il1Stl\"L1l'1'1\u20acl'1t is a counterfeit. inasmucli as EX.P.29\n\n  reiterate that it is a part. of a large scale fraud\n\nm'ooinmit,t'ed on various branches in respect of the goods\n\nsupplied to Nigeria. I--le has also been Cross--examined.\n\n\/.\n\nindeed a perusal of his evidence does not disclose that. once \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n  _plaintifl' had not sanctioned the same.\n\n \n\nagain there is nothing; detrimental to the interest'::of.tl1e\n\nplaintiff has been elicited.\n\n16. This takes us to the:'ei}ide12Qe'--\u00abrof-;\n\ndefendant' No.2 in the suit.\n\nwas placed by Ayoola Compai1_tf\"'~ot' Nigeria  of if\n\n1000 telephone sets Valtled \ufb02US\ufb01do1'lars:. Indeed\nhe would state that  said bank in\nIndia, Mohadevatptira    49. In fact he\nwould depose...    to PW.l by an\naequainvtanee'~   with the plaintiff bank.\nHe would   applied for certain loan to the\n\nplaintiff  but hbweifeirf the loan was not sanctioned.\n\nThe plaintiff also  not allow him to draw the fixed deposit\n\nf\ufb01'an1oiint.E'*uflThVe'~.defendant would depose that he had obtained\n\noverdfraftfffafeilpiity-l\" from plaintiff bank and he had not\n\nniortgagedanyfimitriovable property to the plaintiff. Indeed\n\nhe woteildlstate that he had applied for Working Capital, but\n\nThe bank had\n\n ---..\ufb01obt}air1ed the signature in the form of working capital. He\n\n\":.\"\\NOL11d also state that the bank had obtained signature from\n\nanother director one Prabhu V Prakash. At that point of\n\ntime the had not obtained\n\nplaintiff\n\nHe wotild i\"eiterat.e_tAha't  \n\n \n\n1 C.\n.\n<\/pre>\n
46-\n<\/p>\n
collateral seet.1rit.y from him. He would state that he had
\ngiven title deeds of t.he house to the plaintiff t.o keep in safe<\/p>\n
custody and they were in safe Custody till the disposal of the<\/p>\n
suit. in the ei’oss~examinatioh he would p1’e1et.ically..Vad_n’1i_t<\/p>\n
the ease of t.he plaintiff to the extent that he <\/p>\n
the pay order for a sum of 229,000\/”~ US it <\/p>\n
same was discounted and the p1’oeee_ds o.fstAhe7said lpay<\/p>\n
were transmitted to the plaintiff.yloranehhland
\nfixed deposit at his request.   an
\nattempt is made by   entireHvn1ate1’ial
\nwhich was proeured of telephone<\/p>\n
inst.1″uIn.ent,s V.s_e:izedv.y15y..__tl1-ebatik and the Value of the
\nsame was more –. but however the evidence<\/p>\n
would also dilselosedthat; the seized goods were kept in the<\/p>\n
.a’prer’n”ise E’t’l*;at7″belongedto the first defendant. This is the oral<\/p>\n
 by both the plaintiff as well as the<\/p>\n
defe\u00bb_1;dar1Vt.. _hi;deed to ascertain whether such a transaction<\/p>\n
V’~ei1-1inat.ed _Abet.ween the plaintiffs and the defendants which is<\/p>\n
,.,\/ijt:t7e1’2ti3le to the d.iseour1ting of the pay order EX.P.i is a<\/p>\n
 I1’1\u00a7il,\u20acl’l\ufb02l doetimem. Indeed in EX.P.l the seeond defendant<\/p>\n
 would state as under:\n<\/p>\n
“We have enclosed herewith Demand Draft
\nNo.12″\/18487 dated 25.6.92 favottririg otirselves
\nc.l1*awn at. Midland Bank PLC. London, UK. We<\/p>\n
-17-<\/span><\/p>\n
hereby request you to kindly discount at par the
\nsame and we hereby autliorize you to keep the__.
\nproceeds in our above coinpanys name as
\ndeposit for nine months. Further in case oi’c..,-;;ee\u00abd:’__’ ”  A’<\/p>\n
we may also take loan on that.” ._ ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
17. E3X.P.2 is the letter v..iss1.1.ed  ll.Statiori.V ll
\nManager to the Chief Manager. ‘lBan1:”.’
\nindicating that the office   non– * it
\nexistence of the Midland     not
\ntake place. EX..P.3 is   Chief Manager<\/p>\n
addressed to the Manager “Courier Service.<\/p>\n
expressinlgn   the matter on top
\npriorityllhand  the details of delivery.
\nEX.P:.4_ is }inoi’he1; “V-coiriiilniabhication issued by the KG road<\/p>\n
-V V.   the MAie\u00a71’g;i\u00a7g~’;3ank at London as to the existence of
\n “Qold Harbour Lane. London. In fact this
\n indicate that the Couriers were given
\nlg_to  that they were in respect of the details as to
\n“tifansaction which is more than three months and hence
\nAt’nely”Arequest.ed the principal of Midland Bank to investigate
\nvaiicl let’. them know as to what has happeiled to the
\ni1″lS[1’tll’11\u20acI1l. which was sent by them. The ii’1teri’1al
\nco1’1″esponder1c,e between the Midland Bank and the plaintiff M<\/p>\n
\/.\/<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
 ” –\n<\/p>\n
  4\/,\u00bb ,. .. . . ., MHW.w\u00bb;a>,r~s%so:4xmy\u00ab2z?.aaea’;vm\u00a24.www4,.wN.<\/p>\n
bank and the foreign exchange unit it would spell out that<\/p>\n
the Midland Bank does not have a branch at the adtlzfess<\/p>\n
given in the pay order. indeed it is not in dispute’th’a–t’:’th’e<\/p>\n
defendants were in Correspondence with Ayoola’..’_Co:nrnVereial_’ ‘<\/p>\n
Enterprises, Nigeria for supply-ref’ <\/p>\n
instruments. lndeed the evidence””w0u_ldxvdislcrloselyv<\/p>\n
defendants stumbled upon Vlt.l_fie~…Vsaid”‘ tran_sae_tio.n””iron’: an ” V<\/p>\n
internet. The subsequent correspond.e’nces”areA essentially
\ninterse between the plaintiffs  it would
\ndisclose that they  with the
\nN igerian   _telep’hone’V’instrument Valued
\nat 29,0tiO    to the question as to the
\nliability the suit Claim. Indeed in<\/p>\n
this regard  ..is*not in dispute that the defendants had<\/p>\n
V. “–obtained’an”oyerdraitwfacility as against the fixed deposit. it<\/p>\n
 t_’1’_sl17_..0utV  initially the limit was three lakhs. but<\/p>\n
onau reqL1est:*,mJade by the defendants it has raised the limit<\/p>\n
‘V._to Rs.6′.QO–.0OO\/–. But. however. the defendants have availed<\/p>\n
“t”only’.t:o the extent of Rs.4.34._0O0\/~.<\/p>\n
18. EX.P.23 is the application cum lien letter for<\/p>\n
 advance. against the self deposit. A perusal of EX.P.23 would<\/p>\n
indicate that the defendants have confirmed that a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs\/i,67.000 and two more \ufb01xed deposits totaling toff-‘<\/p>\n
-19-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.8,00.000 and odd is placed by them with the bank for a<\/p>\n
period of nine months in a fixed deposit and they \\vou].~d—-.als0<\/p>\n
coniirrn that the bank had agreed to grant. 3<\/p>\n
3.00,000\/~ as overdraft facility as against
\ndeposit. Indeed EX.P.23 would i:ndicai_e
\ninstance the defendants had agreeditytolll   <\/p>\n
13,00,000\/– as overdraft. iacilitylaayagaihnst the  ” V<\/p>\n
Indeed para 9 of EX.P.2\u00a7 would..i.rldi.ca’t:e that” they defendants
\nhave bound themselves ‘and. laridtundeyrtake to pay on
\ndemand the sum’-of   at 3% over
\nand above    of 12% with a<\/p>\n
rninirnum of l’i’s’% eompcund_ed quarterly for value received.\n<\/p>\n
19.’  yllndeeld  is in furtherance of EX.P.23<\/p>\n
which is ..re1ataE:3leHto the extract from minutes of the meeting<\/p>\n
  directors of the first defendant company<\/p>\n
A  would read as under:\n<\/p>\n
 ‘v’lResolved that an O~D limit of
\nl{s__.t5.00,000\/– be availed with Vysya Bank Ltd,
\nmlbrahim Sabhi Street. Banga.1ore. on the security
\nof our fixed deposit of 1 \u00a3328.50 with them
\nfor the working capital requirements of our
\ncompany. It. is f111’l,l”i\u20ac’.I.’ resolved that. the<\/p>\n
Chairman of the company be empowered to Q<\/p>\n
execute the loan documents.”\n<\/p>\n
…….. Ni –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20. EX.P.25 is an another application cum lien “letter<\/p>\n
for advance against the said deposit. seeking to raise the-.l’ilmit.<\/p>\n
from ‘.3 lakhs to 24,34,000. Indeed para <\/p>\n
reiterate that the defendants have borrowed t~l:”1is= a:rno’unt’–ar1d’ <\/p>\n
agreed and undertaken to pay a sun} of at<\/p>\n
interest over and above the ‘Reserve ‘Bank o\u00a37″\u00a3h’diav rate of <\/p>\n
12% compoundable quarterly ioii\ufb01traltile 1’eceijt\/:ed:. Since the
\nbank was in a fix inasntuch asit ._dis’eounted a pay order
\nfor which the amount was   was not realized<\/p>\n
and the said ;an’io:ui1t; having” been ‘–.di_sc.ounted and money<\/p>\n
being t1*an’sferrjed  kept in ifixed\ufb02\u00e9 deposit in the name of
\nthe defe’ndant’it:  to correspond with the<\/p>\n
defendantto’ dis’eharge the outstanding loan towards<\/p>\n
 overd5raftdA’facility””a.nd___ptl1e amounts borrowed on t.he fixed<\/p>\n
 deposit,  ll<\/p>\n
 is a confirming letter issued by the<\/p>\n
“t.,defendant’.;s. In fact, according to us this would clinch the<\/p>\n
 A perusal of the EX.P.2’7 would disclose that the<\/p>\n
l  defendant would state as follows:\n<\/p>\n
” As per your request, we have already
\nsecured the OD facility of ‘.4.5 lakhs that you<\/p>\n
have extended to us by temporarily placing the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
 ‘V.yre1_ie”f ‘_’i.f:”‘t’hey heed our request.<\/p>\n
house documents of the undersigned in your <\/p>\n
Custody.\n<\/p>\n
The said pay order was issued t.o as’ ‘oy_’
\nM\/s Ayooia Commercial E11i\u20aci’p.I’iS\u20acS of” ‘<\/p>\n
with whom we had the arranzgernent;\n<\/p>\n
1000 rmmbers of telephones att_h’e,rat.e  55*<\/p>\n
29\/– each. We had eon1e–aeross their name  <\/p>\n
directory of international  – im-porters \u00ab. o durilftg<\/p>\n
February, 1992.’ We _t:hC:1fi,VZ’Dui1t up” a
\ncorrespondence with  course
\nthey placed  an   the ,\ufb01t”eiephones.<\/p>\n
PhotocoV’;\u00a7_ies::1iIof:y   may have
\nbeen     0<\/p>\n
_ ‘0#J*.ivevy:n3oV’f .non~rea1ization of the said
\npay order. .,requested the parties to<\/p>\n
direotiy-horedit Vu;e.;\u00a7:~no:znt of US $ 29,000 to<\/p>\n
your acC’ou_:nt’ with Citi bank at New York to<\/p>\n
a’p1%o’eee~d withdthedvdeai. it will be to our greatest<\/p>\n
However,<\/p>\n
 t.he case, we herebv undertake to<\/p>\n
 e1ea1″_;o’i’f’ the overdraft; with interest within two<\/p>\n
months. i.e.. by December, 1992. We request<\/p>\n
00 Vou to grant us this time in View of our<\/p>\n
difi’iCuit’.ies as we may have to dispose off the<\/p>\n
materiais to alternative parties.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22. In View of this oomrnLmieat’ion at %IX.P.2’7′<\/p>\n
according t.o as which would act as 21 confimaing; letter of the 2<\/p>\n
Baiigalore, by deposit of title deeds.<\/p>\n
caveat inasmuch  the<\/p>\n
defendants admitting their claim we are of<\/p>\n
the View that_i.t_’ is
\nnot necessary for us to<\/p>\n
correspondences.\n<\/p>\n
correspondence<\/p>\n
look into the other relatafolle
\nin View of the admission as  *<\/p>\n
interse between l’.~h”\u20acf’   it<\/p>\n
defendants and also the undisputed  <\/p>\n
ie, the pay order was present_edi..V_t.o  plaiiitili’\u00ab:._l:)’an1t–\u00a7for
\ndi.scounting we are of theview Vt.–hat”the.._elairn”o.ifthei\u00a7p1aintil’f
\nin this regard cannot be   }<\/p>\n
23.    appeal as to the
\nrelief    as notwithstanding
\nthe  thatittiiey_Vilhad’-soiight for a relief to realise the
\namount bypsale of the  which was mortgaged to the
\nbar1l1ipll5yiAdepos’i’t..  title” deeds.<\/p>\n
   is the letter addressed to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
 Thdreeitals in the said letter would clearly indicate<\/p>\n
 that t.he’\u00abdei’e11dants have deposited the title deeds relating to<\/p>\n
A  the’–..propei~ty bearing old No.12 {new No.17}, Lavelle road.<\/p>\n
Indeed there is a small
\nequitable mortgage is ereated in
\nof<\/p>\n
respect the said property at Lavelle Road till the<\/p>\n
registration of an industrial shed is made in favour of the<\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
Indeed the learned trial Judge was of the view<\/p>\n
\ufb02<\/p>\n
that the said document cannot be construed as a mo1’tg–age<\/p>\n
deed inasmuch as it is on a plain paper and <\/p>\n
registered. Indeed we are not inclined to  ”<\/p>\n
reasoning given by the learned tri-al”‘J–udge tljatlt’..c<\/p>\n
EX.P.3’7 is not a document creating   <\/p>\n
by deposit. of title deeds.  dt1″1~l\ufb02gl   of
\nevidence it is clearly indicatied pAa1’e.lVar’iopt1sdtypes of
\nmortgages with the banlt’.    elicited in the
\ncross exarninatiQri’o__f’  15 of the<\/p>\n
deposition it__. is “uuse’I!l’;_t;I  to extract tjliiejsaidr eiridence.<\/p>\n
 llll  itis’afiiernorandum of deposit of
\ntitle deedslllfdi’\u00bb_equitaljle ‘mortgage and the party
\nconcerried  such documents. We<\/p>\n
,haVe  for different type of mortgages.
\nd}*~Eguitable Adirioriggage can be executed on white
\n  paper.or–,letterhead and other mortgages will be
\n  I can produce the format of<\/p>\n
Q A  equ.ital;)l’e mortgage by deposit of title deeds”.<\/p>\n
ll””ll’1Cri\u20ac:CCl valperusal of this evidence would clearly disclose that<\/p>\n
” ,tiie_1’_e\u00a7 is no particular format for creating equitable mortgage<\/p>\n
     deposit of title deeds as such it can be on a letter head or<\/p>\n
even on a plain paper. Indeed it would disclose that it is a
\nletter head of second defendam. lt is ft11’l.l}(“‘.E’ st1’eI’1gt.hened<\/p>\n
by his admission in para 4 of the cross examination. Indeed<\/p>\n
-24-<\/span><\/p>\n
there is an admission in the cross examination of DW. liwho<\/p>\n
is defendant. No.2 that he owns and acknowledges
\ninasmuch as it is typed on his letterhead, but  ‘
\ntries to explain that it. cannot be:-termed  V
\nequitable mortgage by deposit of t’.itl:e.pdeegd’sv.
\nis sought to be explained by the
\ncross examination we propose the  portion<\/p>\n
which would read as un::le1’l:’g l’
\n“I ;l1a’v;e:yl”deposited{:  the following
\ntitle deeds to ‘-propeifty bearing old<\/p>\n
  road, Bangalore, till<\/p>\n
the registratiton ..ofi..l_’our industrial shed with
\nintend to  ad mortgage on the said
\nprope.rt.ie.s  all moneys including
\n interest ‘that. be found due and payable on<\/p>\n
V  aiceount ofHthe'”‘said transactions. Descriptions
\n title deeds deposited: (1) Registered sale
\n  16.3.1962 registered as No.38l9 in
\nopooi;\u00e9~lo.l, volume No.1 166 at pages 180 to 184<\/p>\n
“[;_)’:. Registered release deed dated 20.3.1979<\/p>\n
it  registered as No.lO1 of 1979 80 at pages 186~<\/p>\n
‘ l89,volun1e No.2004 ofbook 1.”\n<\/p>\n
25. We are of the View that having regard t:o the fact<\/p>\n
that there is no definite form as to how the equitable<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
niortgage is created by deposit of title deeds EX}-3.37 in the \ufb02<\/p>\n
+25.’
\neireunistances will have to be acted upon and this has to be
\nconstrued as the doeunient creating equitable mortgage deed
\nby deposit of title deeds. To that extent we are of the View<\/p>\n
that the learned trial Judge was not Correct in denyingqlithe<\/p>\n
relief to the plaintiff to the extent. that. they  _<\/p>\n
outstanding amount due by bringing the prope*2’ty:t.o  lnu <\/p>\n
this regard EX.Dl is also required  be..lool{ed.: it<\/p>\n
is the letter issued by the defendan”t_vll\\?o.2 tio”lV’tl1e4_lolaintiff <\/p>\n
bank  _ ” ..\n<\/p>\n
26. This takes ,us to sit-l’-1e’*neXt._ question regarding<\/p>\n
grant of int.erest;,  this regard we are of the View
\nthat theldefendantl  theieireumstances is required to be<\/p>\n
bailed’ —out in so ‘far as interest is concerned. It is to be<\/p>\n
ll”noti’ee.dE5t,l1at..qthis ismnot a Case where the defendant has<\/p>\n
 L..boijrowed~thernoneys and he is trying to avoid the payments.<\/p>\n
Indeed the:eorresponde1’1ee which has been referred in the<\/p>\n
l’..,p1’eeedinVg_,A\u00a7’1~ paragraphs would Clearly indicate that the
\n“\u00abi:”_deiferi’i_ia11t. owns his responsibility of discharging the loan,
\n  bt\u00a7it., however has pleaded certain circun’1stan(:es beyond his<\/p>\n
 eoritrol inasmuch as he had undertaken to supply 1000<\/p>\n
telephone iiistruinents to non–existent company and on the<\/p>\n
basis of the same the pay order was discounted and the<\/p>\n
money was deposited in the plaizltiil bank in three difierent<\/p>\n
fixed deposits and it is also not in dispute that <\/p>\n
borrowed money on the said fixed deposit.   V’<\/p>\n
sympathies with the plight of th~le”””lii  <\/p>\n
CiI’CU.1″11StaE}C\u20acS we are of the View tht the”‘interest–. <\/p>\n
awarded by the trial Court at therate oi” l{i.59{oVteorfapotlrrded
\nquarterly, is excessive._,. .lndeed.—-xite’L~are.,of  xli\ufb01iw\ufb01that the
\nentire interest strueturextisl’ to’Vrbe’V’1r1odit”ied. We are
\nof the View that th’e.__plaiin”tiVlf   for interest
\nat the rate    transaction till the date
\nof filing 12% from the date of
\nfiling ojlthe of -decree and at the rate of 6%
\nfrom thehdaite o’f”de:eree:.4t5ill_mre.alization. Hence the following
\nOlkdg\u00e9i. _V L’ . .\n<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 RFA’V1″rii~j\u00a2:r46\/04 is allowed. The plaintiff appellant is<\/p>\n
 \u20ac1’1titl\\Ef(l”‘\u20aci'() recover the suit claim as decreed by bringing the<\/p>\n
 property to sale to realize the arnount. In so far as RFA<\/p>\n
\u00a33923’\/O4 is eorleerned, we dismiss the appeal. The defendant<\/p>\n
is entitled for sealillg down of interest in the following
\nI
\nrnanne1’:\n<\/p>\n
The plaintiff is e1″1t.it,ied for iruerest at the 1″at.e of M,-._._5\u00b0\/o<\/p>\n
compounded quarteriy from the date 01′ transatttihyi<\/p>\n
date of \ufb01ling of the suit. The plaintiff is entitied
\nthe rate of 12% simple interest. fr01″Vr.1-V
\ndate of decree and 6% simple i11tere\u00a7:[;\u00abVI’rC\u00a7_i,A1’1″ ihf3′.>L”.1E’v1A’t\u20ac:’.Qf<\/p>\n
tilirealization.   V ._
\nBoth the appeais sta11d\u00e9<._.disposed*-.Qfaccgrdingly.<\/p>\n
Parties are directed to b\u00e9_.:ir~._the_fr Qv\u00a7rn..c;osLt1s3,<\/p>\n
     JUDGE<\/p>\n
saf-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010 Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna OF THE ‘BANK SR.I_.,I’.SHAMSUNDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TI-IIS THE ISTH DAY OF NOvEMEERI.’;;Oi\u00bbOfr’:PM PRESENT I THE HON’BLE MR. JUS’I’IC\u00a7.’.–AJIT THE HON’BLE MRS. RFA.No.74S\/2oo4i_CYI\/W._595\/2604., RFA.NO.746[2004 BETWEEN: ING VYSYA I:’iAN.K’1~.”I’D”*- . […]<\/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-117150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIng Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010 - 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\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-31T09:13:01+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-31T09:13:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2456,\"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\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-31T09:13:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010 - 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\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-31T09:13:01+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-31T09:13:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010"},"wordCount":2456,"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\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010","name":"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-31T09:13:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ing-vysya-bank-ltd-vs-vasu-enterpreneurs-pvt-ltd-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs Vasu Enterpreneurs Pvt Ltd on 16 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/117150","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=117150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}