{"id":133031,"date":"2011-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-01T17:41:04","modified_gmt":"2015-10-01T12:11:04","slug":"vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul<\/div>\n
*                 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                               Judgment delivered on: 19.08.2011\n\n\n+                       WP(C) No. 6036\/2011\n\n\nVRA ROAD LINES                                 ...... PETITIONER\n\n\n                                  Vs\n\n\nBANK OF BARODA & ORS.                         ..... RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n
\nFor the Petitioner :       Mr Rajiv Khosla, Advocate\nFor the Respondents:       None\n\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may
\n        be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.     To be referred to Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
\n       in the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J (ORAL)<\/p>\n
CM NO. 12187\/2011 (Exemption)<\/p>\n
       Allowed subject to just exceptions.\n<\/p>\n
       Application stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) 6036\/2011<\/p>\n
1.     By the captioned writ petition a challenge has been laid to<\/p>\n
the order dated 27.08.2004 passed by the Debt Recovery
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                            Page 1 of 9<\/span>
\n Tribunal (in short ‘DRT’) in OA No. 11A\/1996 and the order in<\/p>\n
appeal passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short<\/p>\n
‘DRAT’) dated 11.02.2011.\n<\/p>\n
2.     For the disposal of this writ petition the following brief facts<\/p>\n
require to be noticed:       The respondent no. 1, i.e., the Bank of<\/p>\n
Baroda, had advanced cash credit facilities to respondent no. 2, a<\/p>\n
private limited company, namely, M\/s Stich Arts Exports Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
These cash credit facilities were enhanced from time to time.<\/p>\n
Respondent no 1\/bank at the request of respondent no. 2<\/p>\n
opened, it appears, various letters of credit.<\/p>\n
2.1    For the purposes of the instant case it would be important<\/p>\n
to note that letters of credit were opened by respondent no.<\/p>\n
1\/bank in favour of four (4) entities located in Salem in the State<\/p>\n
of Tamilnadu. These entities being: M\/s Gajalazmi Exports, M\/s<\/p>\n
Umakant Trading Company, M\/s Kala Creation and M\/s Money<\/p>\n
Enterprises.       The purpose of opening the letters of credit in<\/p>\n
favour of aforesaid four (4) entities was to enable respondent no.<\/p>\n
1\/bank     to     purchase   cloth   from   the   entities,   who    were<\/p>\n
beneficiaries of the letter of credit, in order to enable it to<\/p>\n
manufacture garments for the purposes of its export business.<\/p>\n
2.2    Importantly, as per the letters of credit the four entities\/<\/p>\n
beneficiaries of the letter of credit were required to dispatch the<\/p>\n
goods in issue to the stated destination, in terms of the request
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                                Page 2 of 9<\/span>
\n of defendant no. 1 through a transporter. The petitioner before<\/p>\n
us was the transporter who had been entrusted with the<\/p>\n
consignments      of   goods    in   issue   valuing   approximately        `<\/p>\n
8,55,191.161\/- for a consideration.          The petitioner being the<\/p>\n
carrier had issued negotiable motor transport receipts in respect<\/p>\n
of the goods entrusted to it.\n<\/p>\n
2.3    Thus the four (4) entities\/ the beneficiaries of the letter of<\/p>\n
credit were able to obtain payment of the goods sold by them to<\/p>\n
respondent no. 2 against the letters of credit opened by<\/p>\n
respondent no. 1\/ bank on delivery of the original motor transport<\/p>\n
receipts along with all other documents of title in original, as<\/p>\n
detailed out in the letter of credit to the respondent no. 1\/bank.<\/p>\n
2.4    Therefore, as per the arrangement in vogue respondent no.<\/p>\n
1\/ bank would present to respondent no. 2 the documents of title<\/p>\n
including the original motor transport receipt for the purposes of<\/p>\n
enabling respondent no. 2 to retire the same against payment<\/p>\n
made to it by respondent no. 2. On payment being received by<\/p>\n
respondent no. 1\/bank from respondent no. 2 the said documents<\/p>\n
of title including the original motor transport receipt was required<\/p>\n
to be delivered by respondent no. 1\/bank to respondent no. 2,<\/p>\n
who in turn would take delivery of the goods in issue from the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3.     In the given facts of the case the finding returned by both
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                               Page 3 of 9<\/span>
\n the DRT and the DRAT is that respondent no. 2 did not seek<\/p>\n
retirement of the goods in issue by making payment to<\/p>\n
respondent no. 1\/bank.            Consequently a suit was filed in this<\/p>\n
court being suit no. 307\/1986. On the enactment of Recovery of<\/p>\n
Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short<\/p>\n
‘RDB Act’), the suit was transferred to DRT. The proceedings in<\/p>\n
the suit commenced from 12.12.1995. As indicated above, the<\/p>\n
suit was re-numbered as OA No. 11A\/1996.                       In the said OA<\/p>\n
recovery was sought by the respondent no. 1\/bank from the<\/p>\n
petitioner, respondent no. 2, respondent nos. 3 to 5 and<\/p>\n
respondent         no.   6,   jointly   and   severally   of    a   sum     of     `<\/p>\n
10,46,188.78\/- together with cost, pendente lite interest at the<\/p>\n
rate of 20% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The DRT after a detailed discussion on the merit of the case<\/p>\n
and consideration of the evidence on record passed a decree in<\/p>\n
favour    of      the    respondent     no. 1\/bank, the        petitioner    and<\/p>\n
respondent nos. 2 to 6 in the sum of ` 10,46,188.78\/- holding<\/p>\n
them liable jointly and severally, with a caveat that, in so far as<\/p>\n
the liability of the petitioner and respondent no. 6 are concerned,<\/p>\n
it would be limited to ` 8,55,191.16\/-. In so far as respondent no.<\/p>\n
6 is concerned, since he had passed away in the meanwhile, the<\/p>\n
DRT clarified that the liability of the legal heirs would be limited<\/p>\n
to the extent of properties inherited by them from the deceased
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                                      Page 4 of 9<\/span>
\n respondent no. 6 alongwith pendente lite and future interest at<\/p>\n
the rate of 11% per annum from the date of filing of the OA. The<\/p>\n
DRT further observed that in case the legal heirs of respondent<\/p>\n
no. 6 were to make payment within a period of three months<\/p>\n
from the date of its order, the rate of interest charged would be<\/p>\n
calculated at the rate of 10% per annum for the period in issue,<\/p>\n
i.e., pendente lite and post issuance of decree.        The other<\/p>\n
respondents and the petitioner were also directed to pay the<\/p>\n
amount within three months of the date of the order, failing<\/p>\n
which the sum decreed was to be recovered by auction and sale<\/p>\n
of hypothecated and mortgaged properties and other properties<\/p>\n
of the judgment debtors.\n<\/p>\n
4.     Aggrieved by the order of the DRT, the petitioner preferred<\/p>\n
an appeal with the DRAT. The DRAT by the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
5.     Before us Mr Rajiv Khosla argued that the petitioner could<\/p>\n
not have been held liable for payment of monies to respondent<\/p>\n
no. 1\/bank in view of the fact that there is an admission to the<\/p>\n
effect that, respondent no. 2 had received the goods in issue.<\/p>\n
Mr Kholsa further submitted that it has also come on record by<\/p>\n
way of evidence that the petitioner had sold its business to<\/p>\n
respondent no. 6, therefore, the liability, if any, qua the dues of<\/p>\n
respondent no. 1\/bank would be that of the respondent no. 6.
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                           Page 5 of 9<\/span>
\n The last contention of Mr Khosla was that the respondent no.<\/p>\n
1\/bank had filed    alongwith   the present   action, which is,<\/p>\n
represented by OA NO. 11A\/1996 three (3) other suits against<\/p>\n
entities, which were run by the family members of respondent<\/p>\n
nos. 2 to 5, who have been impleaded in the instant action in<\/p>\n
their capacity as guarantors. It was thus contended that in those<\/p>\n
suits\/actions, the respondent no. 1\/bank had arrived at a<\/p>\n
compromise whereby, it was to receive ` 4 crores with simple<\/p>\n
interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum w.e.f. 13.06.1996. By<\/p>\n
virtue of a settlement recorded on 16.01.1997 by the DRT the<\/p>\n
said suits\/actions were to be withdrawn; the mortgaged property<\/p>\n
was to be released; and the other defendants in those<\/p>\n
suits\/actions including the guarantees and securities furnished<\/p>\n
were to be released. Mr Khosla submitted that respondent no.<\/p>\n
1\/bank having compromised its claim in those suits was<\/p>\n
unnecessarily and oppressively seeking to recover dues from the<\/p>\n
petitioner when, the goods in issue had been handed over to<\/p>\n
respondent no. 2.\n<\/p>\n
6.     We may note at the outset that Mr Khosla has     confined<\/p>\n
himself to the submissions noted by us hereinabove.       Having<\/p>\n
heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view<\/p>\n
that the petition is without merit for the reasons given<\/p>\n
hereinafter: As correctly appreciated both by the DRT and the
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                         Page 6 of 9<\/span>
\n DRAT the respondent no. 1\/bank held in original the motor<\/p>\n
transport receipt and all other documents of title. As per terms of<\/p>\n
the letter of credit, which were not disputed before us, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was required to hand over goods in issue to either<\/p>\n
respondent no. 1\/bank or to its nominee, which in the instant<\/p>\n
case would have been respondent no. 2, had respondent no. 2<\/p>\n
paid the money to respondent no. 1\/bank and obtained the<\/p>\n
original motor transport receipt alongwith documents of title.<\/p>\n
Without doubt the petitioner failed to hand over the goods in<\/p>\n
issue to respondent no. 1\/bank, despite it holding the documents<\/p>\n
of title.   There is no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
entrusted with the goods in issue.\n<\/p>\n
7.     The arguments of Mr Khosla, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, that the receipt of goods in issue by respondent no. 2<\/p>\n
is admittedly is of no avail in the face of conditions stipulated in<\/p>\n
the letter of credit.      In so far as the respondent no. 1\/bank is<\/p>\n
concerned, it neither received the money from respondent no 2<\/p>\n
on whose behalf letter of credit had been opened nor did it<\/p>\n
receive the goods in issue. Therefore, the respondent no. 1\/bank<\/p>\n
was entitled to file an action amongst other against the<\/p>\n
petitioner.       The argument of the petitioner that it had sold its<\/p>\n
business to respondent no. 6 and hence respondent no. 6, if at<\/p>\n
all, could be held liable, is also without merit. The respondent no.
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                             Page 7 of 9<\/span>
\n 1\/bank would have no privity of contract with respondent no. 6. If<\/p>\n
there was any wrong doing on the part of respondent no. 6,<\/p>\n
surely remedies in law were available to the petitioner to take an<\/p>\n
appropriate action against respondent no. 6.<\/p>\n
7.1    As a matter of fact the authorities below have noted the<\/p>\n
contents of notice dated 14.01.1985, issued by the advocate for<\/p>\n
the petitioner which records therein that the petitioner accepted<\/p>\n
the fact that it held goods for the bank. It is another matter, as<\/p>\n
noticed by the DRAT, that the petitioner sought to change track<\/p>\n
by writing a letter, within two months, contrary to the position<\/p>\n
taken in the notice dated 14.01.1985.\n<\/p>\n
8.     The other argument of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the compromise by respondent no. 1\/bank with<\/p>\n
respondent no. 2 ought to have absolved the petitioner, is in our<\/p>\n
view also untenable.    The DRT in paragraph 9 has extracted<\/p>\n
clause III of the compromise application filed in those actions,<\/p>\n
which in no uncertain terms allowed the respondent no. 1\/bank to<\/p>\n
prosecute its claim against the petitioner.     In our view, the<\/p>\n
compromise arrived at in other proceedings between respondent<\/p>\n
no. 1\/bank and entities, who perhaps were, as alleged controlled<\/p>\n
by the family members of respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein, i.e., the<\/p>\n
guarantors, cannot impinge upon the legal tenability of the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree passed against the petitioner.
\nWP(C) 6036\/2011                                          Page 8 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 9.     For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the writ<\/p>\n
petition is devoid of merit and hence, as indicated above,<\/p>\n
deserves to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                        SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J<\/p>\n
                                        RAJIV SHAKDHER, J<\/p>\n
AUGUST 19, 2011
\nkk<\/p>\n
WP(C) 6036\/2011                                          Page 9 of 9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011 Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 19.08.2011 + WP(C) No. 6036\/2011 VRA ROAD LINES …… PETITIONER Vs BANK OF BARODA & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011 - 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\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-01T12:11:04+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\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T12:11:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1788,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T12:11:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011 - 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\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-01T12:11:04+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\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T12:11:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"wordCount":1788,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011","name":"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T12:11:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vra-road-lines-vs-bank-of-baroda-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vra Road Lines vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 19 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/133031","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=133031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}