{"id":120789,"date":"2000-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000"},"modified":"2017-08-06T06:49:18","modified_gmt":"2017-08-06T01:19:18","slug":"bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.S.M.Quadri, Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBHUNESHWAR PRASAD &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNITED COMMERCIAL BANK &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t25\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.S.M.Quadri, Y.K.Sabharwal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Y.K.SABHARWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  appellants and respondents 3 to 7 are owners\t and<br \/>\nlandlords  of  the premises in question.  United  Commercial<br \/>\nBank-respondent\t No.1 is the tenant.  Respondent No.2 is  an<br \/>\nofficer of the bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t suit seeking a decree of eviction of the bank\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  premises  was filed by the owners.\t It has been,  inter<br \/>\nalia,  alleged in the plaint that the bank was inducted as a<br \/>\ntenant\tin  the\t premises for a fixed period of\t five  years<br \/>\ncommencing  from 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1986 through<br \/>\na registered deed of lease.  The bank was given an option to<br \/>\nget  the  lease\t renewed for two terms of  five\t years\teach<br \/>\nprovided  it gives notice for renewal of the lease each time<br \/>\none  month  prior to the expiration of the period of  lease.<br \/>\nThe  bank  exercised  this option one month  prior  to\t31st<br \/>\nMarch,\t1986  and accordingly the lease was renewed for\t the<br \/>\nperiod from 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1991 at a monthly<br \/>\nrent  of  Rs.  10,876\/-.  It seems that before\t31st  March,<br \/>\n1991,  the  bank did not exercise option for renewal of\t the<br \/>\nlease.\t The  bank was asked to vacate the premises by\t31st<br \/>\nMay,  1991 under plaintiff&#8217;s letter dated 22nd April,  1991.<br \/>\nNow, the bank by letter dated 24th April, 1991 requested the<br \/>\nplaintiffs  for renewal of lease but the plaintiffs did\t not<br \/>\nagree  and  requested for vacation of the premises.  It\t has<br \/>\nalso been stated in the plaint that after expiry of lease on<br \/>\n31st  March, 1991, the bank used to deposit the rent in\t the<br \/>\naccount\t of  the  plaintiffs in their branch  but  that\t was<br \/>\nwithout\t their\tconsent\t and mere payment  of  rent  without<br \/>\nconsent\t would\tnot  create any fresh  tenancy.\t  Under\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  circumstances, the owners sought eviction of\t the<br \/>\nbank on the sole ground of expiry of the period of the lease<br \/>\nunder  clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of  Bihar<br \/>\nBuildings  (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for<br \/>\nshort `the Act&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  suit\t was  resisted\tby  the\t bank,\tinter  alia,<br \/>\npleading  that\tthe  bank  has been  in\t occupation  of\t the<br \/>\npremises as tenant since 1963 and from time to time the rent<br \/>\nhas  been  enhanced.   The bank has claimed to be  a  tenant<br \/>\nmonth  to  month.   The\t bank\tpleaded\t that  it  regularly<br \/>\ndeposited the rent in the account of the plaintiffs and they<br \/>\nwere  withdrawing  the rent so deposited every\tmonth  after<br \/>\n31st  March,  1991  at\tthe enhanced rate  of  rent  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n13,595\/-  per  month  in place of Rs.  10,876\/-.   The\tbank<br \/>\npleaded that the amount is being paid as monthly rent as per<br \/>\nits letter dated 7th September, 1991 addressed to the owners<br \/>\nand  after  discussion,\t they  agreed to  receive  the\tsaid<br \/>\nenhanced  rent\tand are withdrawing the same.  It  has\tthus<br \/>\nbeen  claimed that the bank is not tenant for any fixed term<br \/>\nperiod but is a monthly tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t decree for eviction on the ground above stated\t was<br \/>\npassed\tby  the\t trial court directing the bank\t to  deliver<br \/>\nvacant\tpossession  of the premises to the  plaintiffs.\t  In<br \/>\nrevision petition, however, judgment and decree of the trial<br \/>\ncourt  has  been  set  aside by the High  Court.   The\tsaid<br \/>\njudgment is under challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  High Court has recorded the finding of fact\tthat<br \/>\neven  after expiry of period of lease, rent of the  premises<br \/>\nat the increased rate, as per request of the plaintiffs, was<br \/>\nregularly  deposited  by the defendant in their bank in\t the<br \/>\naccounts  of  the  plaintiffs which have  been\tsubsequently<br \/>\nwithdrawn by them.  Admittedly, the rent under the lease for<br \/>\nthe  period  up\t to 31st March, 1991 was Rs.   10,876\/-\t per<br \/>\nmonth.\t The High Court has further held that the plaintiffs<br \/>\nasked the bank as per their letter dated 5th September, 1992<br \/>\nto  deposit  the rent of the premises at the increased\trate<br \/>\nand  the  bank\tdeposited rent at the  enhanced\t rate  which<br \/>\namount\twas  withdrawn by the plaintiffs.  The amount  being<br \/>\ndeposited by the bank after 31st March, 1991 was at the rate<br \/>\nof  Rs.\t  13,595\/- per month.  The High Court has held\tthat<br \/>\n&#8220;it  is\t admitted position that the plaintiffs accepted\t 25%<br \/>\nincreased amount of monthly rent of the premises in question<br \/>\nwhich is evident from Exs.  B-3 and B-4.&#8221; The question to be<br \/>\nconsidered,  therefore,\t is as to the effect of\t payment  of<br \/>\nenhanced  rent by the bank to the owners.  Does it create or<br \/>\nnot  a fresh tenancy from month to month within the  meaning<br \/>\nof  Section  116 of the Transfer of Property  Act?   Learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for the appellants contends that mere acceptance of<br \/>\nrent  does not create tenancy from month to month because of<br \/>\nthe protection from eviction available to the bank under the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  present  is\tnot  a\t case  of  the\tpayment\t and<br \/>\nacceptance  of\tthe rent which was stipulated in  the  lease<br \/>\ndeed.\tIt is also not the case where standard rent fixed by<br \/>\nany  authority\thas  been  paid.    The\t increased  rent  as<br \/>\naforestated  was deposited after 31st March, 1991.  The same<br \/>\nwas  accepted  by  withdrawal of the amount.   In  terms  of<br \/>\nletter\tdated 5th September, 1992, in fact, the owners asked<br \/>\nfor  payment  of the rent &#8220;hitherto deposited.&#8221; It has\tbeen<br \/>\nestablished  on the record that the rent demanded, deposited<br \/>\nand  withdrawn\twas increased rent.  In the light  of  these<br \/>\nestablished  facts, we would examine whether in law  monthly<br \/>\ntenancy\t as  contemplated by Section 116 of the Transfer  of<br \/>\nProperty Act, 1882 came into existence or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellants  contends  that  Section 116 of the\tTransfer  of<br \/>\nProperty  Act would not be attracted merely on acceptance of<br \/>\nrent.\tReliance is placed upon a decision of Federal  Court<br \/>\nin  Kai\t Khushroo Bezonjee Capadia v.  Bai Jerbai  Hirjibhoy<br \/>\nWarden\t&amp; Anr.\t[1949 Federal Court Reports 262].  We  agree<br \/>\nthat  to  bring\t a  new tenancy into  existence\t within\t the<br \/>\nmeaning\t of Section 116, there should be an agreement as the<br \/>\nsection\t contemplates  that on one side, there should be  an<br \/>\noffer  of  taking  a  fresh  demise  evidenced\tby  lessee&#8217;s<br \/>\ncontinuing  occupation\tof the property after the expiry  of<br \/>\nthe  lease  and on the other side, there must be a  definite<br \/>\nassent\t to   this   continuance  of   possession   by\t the<br \/>\nlessor\/landlord\t and  that  such an assent of  the  landlord<br \/>\ncannot\tbe  assumed  in\t cases of tenancies  to\t which\tRent<br \/>\nRestriction  Acts  apply  on account of\t the  immunity\tfrom<br \/>\neviction  which\t a  tenant enjoys even after the  expiry  of<br \/>\nlease.\t In such cases, the landlord cannot eject him except<br \/>\non  specified grounds mentioned in the Rent Restriction Acts<br \/>\nand  thus  the\tacceptance of rent by the  landlord  from  a<br \/>\nstatutory tenant, whose lease has already expired, would not<br \/>\nbe  taken  as  evidence of new agreement of tenancy  and  it<br \/>\nwould  not  be\topen  to  such a  tenant  to  urge  that  by<br \/>\nacceptance  of rent, a fresh tenancy was created.  We do not<br \/>\nexpect\ta lessor not to accept the rent when, in view of the<br \/>\nprotection  granted  by the Rent Restriction  laws,  without<br \/>\nexistence  of one or the other ground, he is precluded\tfrom<br \/>\nseeking\t eviction  of the lessee and in such a\tcase,  there<br \/>\nwould  be  no question of creation of tenancy from month  to<br \/>\nmonth.\tUnder these circumstances, mere acceptance of amount<br \/>\nequivalent  to\trent or the standard rent would not  attract<br \/>\nSection\t 116.\tAssent\tto lessee continuing  in  possession<br \/>\nwould  be  absent  in  such cases.   However,  an  agreement<br \/>\ncreating fresh tenancy within the meaning of Section 116 can<br \/>\nbe  implied from the conduct of the parties.  <a href=\"\/doc\/243457\/\">In Ganga\tDutt<br \/>\nMurarka v.  Kartik Chandra Das and Ors.<\/a>\t [(1961) 3 SCR 813],<br \/>\nwhile  affirming  the  dictum laid down in  Khushroo&#8217;s\tcase<br \/>\n(supra),  it  was held that apart from an express  contract,<br \/>\nconduct\t of the parties may undoubtedly justify an inference<br \/>\nthat  after  determination of the contractual  tenancy,\t the<br \/>\nlandlord  had entered into a fresh contract with the tenant,<br \/>\nbut  whether  the conduct justifies such an  inference\tmust<br \/>\nalways\tdepend\tupon  the facts of each case.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/994707\/\">In  Bhawanji<br \/>\nLakhamshi  and\tOrs.   v.  Himatlal Jamnadas Dani  and\tOrs.<\/a><br \/>\n[1972  (1)  SCC\t 388], again the question that came  up\t for<br \/>\nconsideration  was as to whether a fresh tenancy was created<br \/>\nor  not\t by  acceptance\t of rent by  the  lessor  after\t the<br \/>\ntermination  of\t the tenancy by efflux of time.\t This  Court<br \/>\ndeclined  the prayer to reconsider Ganga Dutt Murarka&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra)\t and  held  that  acceptance by\t landlord  from\t the<br \/>\ntenant,\t after\tthe  contractual  tenancy  had\texpired,  of<br \/>\namounts\t equivalent  to rent or amounts which was  fixed  as<br \/>\nstandard  rent\tdid not amount to acceptance of rent from  a<br \/>\nlessee\twithin the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty  Act.\t The present is not a case of acceptance  of<br \/>\namounts equivalent to rent or amounts fixed as standard rent<br \/>\nbut acceptance of increased rent.  It was also observed that<br \/>\n&#8220;we  do not say that the operation of Section 116 is  always<br \/>\nexcluded  whatever  be\tthe circumstances  under  which\t the<br \/>\ntenant pays the rent and the landlord accepts it.&#8221; The whole<br \/>\nbasis  of Section 116 is that a landlord is entitled to file<br \/>\na suit for ejectment and obtain a decree for possession and,<br \/>\ntherefore,  his acceptance of rent after expiry of lease  is<br \/>\nan  unequivocal act referable to his desire to assent to the<br \/>\ntenant\tcontinuing possession.\tIt would be absent in  cases<br \/>\nwhere  there  are the restrictions as contemplated  by\tRent<br \/>\nlaws.\tIn such cases, therefore, it is for the tenant where<br \/>\nit  is\tsaid  that the landlord accepted the rent not  as  a<br \/>\nstatutory  tenant but only as a legal tenant indicating\t his<br \/>\nassent to tenant&#8217;s continuing possession, to establish it.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  the present case, the bank from the conduct of the<br \/>\nowners has established that the acceptance of increased rent<br \/>\nwas  in\t token\tof owners assent to the bank  continuing  in<br \/>\npossession after expiry of the lease, thereby creating lease<br \/>\nfrom  month  to month within the meaning of Section  116  of<br \/>\nTransfer  of Property Act, 1882.  The High Court has rightly<br \/>\nreversed the judgment and decree of the trial court.  Before<br \/>\nparting\t we may make it clear that we are not concerned with<br \/>\nthe  proceedings for fixation of the rent if pending  before<br \/>\nthe  appropriate authorities under the Act, as the same\t are<br \/>\nnot  the  subject matter of this appeal and the fixation  of<br \/>\nthe standard rent and from when it is payable is a matter to<br \/>\nbe decided by the said authorities in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the appeal.\t The<br \/>\nparties are, however, left to bear their costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000 Author: Y.K.Sabharwal Bench: S.S.M.Quadri, Y.K.Sabharwal PETITIONER: BHUNESHWAR PRASAD &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/2000 BENCH: S.S.M.Quadri, Y.K.Sabharwal JUDGMENT: Y.K.SABHARWAL, J. The appellants and respondents 3 to 7 are owners and [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000 - 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\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-06T01:19:18+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-06T01:19:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1773,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-06T01:19:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000 - 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\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-06T01:19:18+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-06T01:19:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000"},"wordCount":1773,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000","name":"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-06T01:19:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhuneshwar-prasad-anr-vs-united-commercial-bank-ors-on-25-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhuneshwar Prasad &amp; Anr vs United Commercial Bank &amp; Ors on 25 August, 2000"}]},{"@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\/120789","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=120789"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120789\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}