{"id":119054,"date":"2009-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-04T08:51:46","modified_gmt":"2018-08-04T03:21:46","slug":"the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit &#8230; vs \/- As Diet Money For Its &#8230; on 4 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit &#8230; vs \/- As Diet Money For Its &#8230; on 4 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU             \nCRev No. 140 of 2007 \nI-Up Bottling Company \nPetiotioner\nBank of India\nRespondent  \n!Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate.\n^Mr. C. L. Razdan, Advocate.\n\nMR. JUSTICE J.P.SINGH, JUDGE     \nDate : 04\/02\/2009\n: J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Bank of India had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.<br \/>\n54,32,677.01 in this Court more than twenty years ago. This suit was<br \/>\nlater transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank<br \/>\nCases) Jammu, for its disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Taking note of earlier interim orders passed during the currency<br \/>\nof the suit, the trial Court, vide its order of August 10, 2007, had<br \/>\nallowed opportunity to the petitioner- defendant to deposit Rs.<br \/>\n10,000\/- as diet money for its out-station witnesses appearing at serial<br \/>\nnos. 5 to 10, 14, 20 and 21 of the list of witnesses, and Rs. 1500\/- each<br \/>\nfor rest of its witnesses who had to come from Jammu.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Petitioner-defendant did not comply with this order as a result<br \/>\nwhereof the petitioner&#8217;s right to summon its witnesses through the<br \/>\nprocess of the Court was closed. The petitioner was, however,<br \/>\npermitted to produce its witnesses on its own.<br \/>\nQuestioning the trial Court&#8217;s orders dated August 10, 2007 and<br \/>\nSeptember 10, 2007, petitioner&#8217;s counsel submits that as the trial<br \/>\nCourt had earlier accepted Rs. 100\/- as diet money of the ex-station<br \/>\nwitnesses, its order of August 10, 2007 was not justified, because no<br \/>\nprovision of the Code of Civil Procedure may permit such a course.<br \/>\nHe submits that order passed by the trial Court on September 10,<br \/>\n2007, closing petitioner&#8217;s right to summon its witnesses through Court<br \/>\nprocess, too, for the similar reasons, was liable to be set aside.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, has justified<br \/>\nthe trial Court&#8217;s orders, urging that ex-station witnesses, particularly<br \/>\nthose enjoying the status of Chairman and Zonal Officer of Scheduled<br \/>\nBanks, cannot be compelled to appear in the Court unless the<br \/>\npetitioner had deposited in the Court the actual expenses which these<br \/>\nwitnesses would have to defray to reach the Court house and spend for<br \/>\ntheir stay at Jammu.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before dealing with the submissions made by learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the parties it would be profitable to refer to what had weighed with<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><br \/>\nthe trial Court to direct the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000\/- each for<br \/>\nout-station witnesses, holding the status of Chairman and Zonal<br \/>\nOfficer of the Bank. This order reads thus:-<br \/>\n&#8220;In order to succeed in their ulterior motive to<br \/>\nprotract the litigation the defendants further<br \/>\nsubmitted a long list of 21 witnesses without<br \/>\nstating any specific purpose for which they are<br \/>\ncalled i.e. as to what they have to depose and as to<br \/>\nwhat they have to prove from the witness and their<br \/>\ndiet expenses have been fixed at Rs. 100\/- each<br \/>\nthough the witnesses have to be summoned from<br \/>\nMumbai, New Delhi, Chandigarh and Gaziabad<br \/>\n(UP) respectively. If a witness that too of a status<br \/>\nof Chairman of a Bank or the Zonal Officers of the<br \/>\nBank who have to come from outside the State it<br \/>\nwill take at least three days for them to appear in<br \/>\nthis Court and that too if they travel by air. As such<br \/>\nthe to and fro air fair will not cost them less than<br \/>\nRs. 10,000\/- each only, for travel even if no diet<br \/>\nexpenses are defrayed to them for the minimum<br \/>\nthree days they have to spend as appearing as a<br \/>\nwitness. The present application has simply been<br \/>\nfiled by the defendants so that the litigation does<br \/>\ncome to a logical conclusion and in my view, if<br \/>\nsuch a practice is not curbed or discouraged then<br \/>\ntheir will no end to the present litigation and it will<br \/>\ntake another two decades to see that the light of the<br \/>\nday.\n<\/p>\n<p>Viewed thus, it is directed that in case the<br \/>\ndefendants are still seriously interested to get the<br \/>\nwitnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses to be<br \/>\nsummoned by this Court they shall deposit Rs.<br \/>\n10,000\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for the<br \/>\nrest of the witnesses who have to come from<br \/>\nJammu on or before the next date fixed positively<br \/>\nwith a specific purpose for which the witness is<br \/>\nproposed to be produced and with a further<br \/>\ncondition that they shall defray the diet expenses if<br \/>\nfound still insufficient at the time of their<br \/>\nexamination, failing which the defendants shall<br \/>\nproduce the said witnesses at their own on the next<br \/>\ndate fixed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>I have considered the provisions of Order 16 Rule 2 of the<br \/>\nCode of Civil Procedure in terms whereof the Court is empowered to<br \/>\nrequire a party desirous of seeking summons to secure the presence of<br \/>\nits witnesses, to pay into the Court such sum as may appear to the<br \/>\nCourt to be sufficient to defray the travelling and other expenses of<br \/>\nthe persons so summoned, in coming to and from the Court, in which<br \/>\nthey were required to attend.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the event of a Court&#8217;s finding that the amount deposited by<br \/>\nthe party, desirous of securing the presence of the witnesses through<br \/>\nCourt process, was not sufficient, resort may be made by the Court to<br \/>\nthe provisions of Order 16 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to<br \/>\ndirect such party to deposit such expenses or reasonable remuneration,<br \/>\nwhich, according to Court would be necessary to defray the travelling<br \/>\nexpenses of the witnesses. Order 16 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:-<br \/>\n&#8221; 4. Procedure where insufficient sum paid in<br \/>\n(1) Where it appears to the Court or to such officer as it<br \/>\nappoints in this behalf that the sum paid into Court is<br \/>\nnot sufficient to cover such expenses or reasonable<br \/>\nremuneration, the Court may direct such further sum to<br \/>\nbe paid to the person summoned as appears to be<br \/>\nnecessary on that account, and, in case of default in<br \/>\npayment, may order such sum to be levied by<br \/>\nattachment and sale of the moveable property of the<br \/>\nparty obtaining the summons, or the Court may<br \/>\ndischarge the person summoned without requiring him<br \/>\nto give evidence; or may both order such levy and<br \/>\ndischarge such person as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<p>Expenses of witnesses detained more than one day:<br \/>\n(2) Where it is necessary to detain the person<br \/>\nsummoned for longer period than one day, the Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><br \/>\nmay, from time to time, order the party at whose<br \/>\ninstance he was summoned to pay into Court such sum<br \/>\nas it sufficient to defray the expenses of his detention<br \/>\nfor such further period, and, in default of such deposit<br \/>\nbeing made, may order such sum to be levied by<br \/>\nattachment and sale of the moveable property of such<br \/>\nparty; or the Court may discharge the person<br \/>\nsummoned without requiring him to give evidence; or<br \/>\nmay both order such levy and discharge such person as<br \/>\naforesaid.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Power under Order 16 Rule 4 of the Code may be exercised by<br \/>\nthe Court even before issuance of summons to the witness, for there is<br \/>\nno disabling provision in the Code which may require making up of<br \/>\nsuch deficiency only when the witness appears in the Court. This is so<br \/>\nbecause summons for appearance of a witness in civil cases and for<br \/>\nhis stay for more than one day, may be issued by the Court only when<br \/>\nit is satisfied that the sum deposited by the party desirous of<br \/>\nsummoning the witness was sufficient to defray the travel and other<br \/>\nexpenses of the person summoned and for his comfortable stay for the<br \/>\nperiod he is so required to appear in the Court.<br \/>\nI therefore do not find substance in Mr. Anil Sethi&#8217;s submission<br \/>\nthat the trial Court should have first issued summons to the ex-station<br \/>\nwitnesses on the meager amount of Rs. 100\/- which had been earlier<br \/>\ndeposited by the petitioner-defendant to secure the presence of<br \/>\npersons enjoying the status of Chairman and Zonal Officer of a<br \/>\nScheduled Bank, and thereafter called upon the petitioner-defendant<br \/>\nto deposit more money in case it was so demanded by the witnesses.<br \/>\nThis is so because a person enjoying a higher status and used to a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><br \/>\nbetter life style because of the nature of his job, cannot be compelled<br \/>\nto travel by spending on his own or on account of his employer or on<br \/>\namount which may be insufficient to defray his travel and other<br \/>\nexpenses to which he may be entitled under rules.<br \/>\nI, therefore, do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order<br \/>\nof the trial Court, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000\/- for<br \/>\neach ex-station witness and Rs. 1500\/- for the witnesses who had to<br \/>\ncome from Jammu.\n<\/p>\n<p>As the petitioner had failed to comply with order of August 10,<br \/>\n2007, so the resultant order passed by the trial Court, refusing to<br \/>\nsummon the witnesses but permitting the petitioner to produce its<br \/>\nwitnesses on its own, too cannot be faulted.<br \/>\nFor all what has been said above I do not find any merit in this<br \/>\nrevision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.<br \/>\n(J. P. Singh)<br \/>\nJudge<br \/>\nJammu<br \/>\nFebruary 4, 2009<br \/>\nAnil Raina, Secy.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit &#8230; vs \/- As Diet Money For Its &#8230; on 4 February, 2009 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CRev No. 140 of 2007 I-Up Bottling Company Petiotioner Bank of India Respondent !Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate. ^Mr. C. L. Razdan, Advocate. MR. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit ... vs \/- As Diet Money For Its ... on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit ... vs \/- As Diet Money For Its ... on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-04T03:21:46+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit &#8230; vs \\\/- As Diet Money For Its &#8230; on 4 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T03:21:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1502,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009\",\"name\":\"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit ... vs \\\/- As Diet Money For Its ... on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T03:21:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit &#8230; vs \\\/- As Diet Money For Its &#8230; on 4 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit ... vs \/- As Diet Money For Its ... on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit ... vs \/- As Diet Money For Its ... on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-04T03:21:46+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit &#8230; vs \/- As Diet Money For Its &#8230; on 4 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T03:21:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009"},"wordCount":1502,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009","name":"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit ... vs \/- As Diet Money For Its ... on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T03:21:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bank-of-india-had-filed-a-suit-vs-as-diet-money-for-its-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Bank Of India Had Filed A Suit &#8230; vs \/- As Diet Money For Its &#8230; on 4 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/119054","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=119054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119054\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}