{"id":15009,"date":"2001-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001"},"modified":"2017-01-13T22:19:31","modified_gmt":"2017-01-13T16:49:31","slug":"standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 4785  of  1998\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTANDARD CHARTERED BANK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CUSTODIAN &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/04\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde &amp; Y.K. Sabharwal.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>(With CA Nos.6088\/98 &amp; 425\/99)<br \/>\nJ U D G M E N T<br \/>\nL&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>    These  appeals are filed against the judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated  20th July, 1998 passed by the Special Court at Bombay<br \/>\nconstituted  under  the\t Special Court\t(Trial\tof  Offences<br \/>\nRelating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (for short<br \/>\nthe  Act).   Though by the impugned order, the High  Court<br \/>\nhas  decided  a\t number of questions raised before  it,\t the<br \/>\nappellants  before  us have confined their argument  to\t the<br \/>\nfollowing questions;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (a) whether the interest claimed by them is liable to be<br \/>\ndisbursed   under  Section  11(2)(b)  of   the\tAct   on   a<br \/>\npreferential  basis  or the same is to be distributed  under<br \/>\nSection 11(2)(c) of the Act;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t do  the secured creditors have the right  to  stand<br \/>\noutside\t the  distribution under Section 11 of the  Act\t and<br \/>\nrecover their dues.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 11 of the Act reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Discharge  of liabilities(1) Notwithstanding  anything<br \/>\ncontained  in the Code and any other law for the time  being<br \/>\nin  force,  the Special Court may make such order as it\t may<br \/>\ndeem  fit  directing the Custodian for the disposal  of\t the<br \/>\nproperty under attachment.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (2)\t  The  following  liabilities\tshall  be  paid\t  or<br \/>\ndischarged  in\tfull,  as  far as may be, in  the  order  as<br \/>\nunder:&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (a)\t all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from\t the<br \/>\npersons\t notified by the Custodian under sub-section (2)  of<br \/>\nSec.  3 to the Central Government or any State Government or<br \/>\nany local authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t all amounts due from the person so notified by\t the<br \/>\nCustodian  to  any bank of financial institution  or  mutual<br \/>\nfund;  and<\/p>\n<p>    (c)\t any  other  liability as may be  specified  by\t the<br \/>\nSpecial Court from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t High Court came to the conclusion in regard to\t the<br \/>\nclaim  of interest by the appellants that the same cannot be<br \/>\ndistributed  on priority basis under Section 11(2)(b) of the<br \/>\nAct, but same can be done under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act.<br \/>\nIn  regard  to this finding, the appellants contend that  in<br \/>\nview  of the wording of sub-section (2) of Section 11,\tthey<br \/>\nare  entitled  not only to the principal amount due to\tthem<br \/>\nbut  also  to the interest that has become payable  thereon,<br \/>\ntherefore,  they are entitled for the payment under  Section<br \/>\n11(2)(b)  of  the  Act.\t On behalf of the Custodian,  it  is<br \/>\nargued\tthat the amount payable to the appellants, be it the<br \/>\nprincipal  or interest, can be only such amount and interest<br \/>\nthereon\t as  became due within the period stipulated in\t the<br \/>\nAct,  that  is,\t the  notified\tperiod\tbeing  1.4.1991\t and<br \/>\n6.6.1992.   Therefore,\tit is contended that the  appellants<br \/>\nare  not entitled to the interest payable on the amount\t due<br \/>\nto  them which falls outside the notified period.  It is the<br \/>\ncase of the Custodian that the interest that becomes payable<br \/>\noutside\t the  notified\tperiod, can be\tclaimed\t only  under<br \/>\nSection 11(2)(c) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Having  considered the arguments of the parties, we\t are<br \/>\nof the opinion that the contention advanced on behalf of the<br \/>\nCustodian  merits  acceptance.\tIt is to be seen  that\tthis<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/58677\/\">Harshad Shantilal Mehta v.  Custodian &amp; Ors.<\/a>  (1998<br \/>\n5  SCC\t1)  while  examining the claim of  the\tRevenue\t for<br \/>\npayment\t on priority basis under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act<br \/>\nregarding  the\tamounts\t due under the heads  penalty  and<br \/>\ninterest had held thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>    Since  the\tliabilities covered under Section  11(2)(a)<br \/>\nare  only liabilities arising during the period 1.4.1991  to<br \/>\n6.6.1992,  and\tdo  not\t cover\tpenalty\t and  interest,\t the<br \/>\nquestion  whether  the Special Court can absolve a  notified<br \/>\nperson from imposition of penalty or interest after the date<br \/>\nof  the\t notification does not really arise.  In  any  case,<br \/>\ninterest or penalty for any action or default after the date<br \/>\nof  the notification, are not covered by the Act.  x x x The<br \/>\nSpecial\t Court\tis required to consider this  question\tonly<br \/>\nfrom  the  point  of view of distributing any  part  of\t the<br \/>\nsurplus\t assets\t in  the hands of the  Custodian  after\t the<br \/>\ndischarge  of  liabilities  under   Sections  11(2)(a)\t and<br \/>\n11(2)(b).   The\t Special  Court has  full  discretion  under<br \/>\nSection 11(2)(c) to decide whether such claim for penalty or<br \/>\ninterest  should  be  paid out of any surplus funds  in\t the<br \/>\nhands of the Custodian.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Though the said judgment was delivered with reference to<br \/>\nthe claim made by the income-tax authorities, the said ratio<br \/>\nis  applicable to the claim made by the appellants in  these<br \/>\nappeals so far as their claim for interest is concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\tis to be noted also that when the Special Court\t was<br \/>\nconsidering the claim of the Revenue for payment of interest<br \/>\nand  penalty  due  from the notified persons  under  Section<br \/>\n11(2)(b)  of  the Act, these very appellants  had  contended<br \/>\nthat  any  interest or penalty which became due outside\t the<br \/>\nnotified  period could only be distributed by the  Custodian<br \/>\nunder  Section\t11(2)(c) of the Act.  We are of the  opinion<br \/>\nthat  the stand taken by the appellants in that case is\t the<br \/>\ncorrect\t one  and  the same should apply to their  claim  in<br \/>\nthese  appeals\talso.  Therefore, so far as the\t appellants<br \/>\nclaim  for  interest  is concerned, in our opinion,  if\t the<br \/>\ninterest fell due within the notified period, the same shall<br \/>\nbe  distributed\t on the basis of the  priority\tcontemplated<br \/>\nunder Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, and so far as their claim<br \/>\nfor  interest which fell due outside the notified period  is<br \/>\nconcerned, the same can be entertained by the Custodian only<br \/>\nunder Section 11(2)(c) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tregard to the next contention pertaining to  secured<br \/>\ncreditors,  some of whom are the appellants in this batch of<br \/>\nappeals,  it is to be noted that the Special Court held that<br \/>\nthey  are  not\tentitled to stand outside  the\tdistribution<br \/>\nunder  Section 11 of the Act, hence, they will have to claim<br \/>\nthe amounts due to them under Section 11(2) of the Act.\t The<br \/>\nargument  on  behalf of such secured creditors is  that\t the<br \/>\nproperty  secured  in their favour is not attachable by\t the<br \/>\nCustodian;  hence, the proceeds from such security cannot be<br \/>\nutilised  for  distribution under Section 11(2) of the\tAct.<br \/>\nThey  contend  that  these properties which are\t secured  in<br \/>\ntheir  favour cannot be treated as the properties  belonging<br \/>\nto  a  notified person, and that their interest in the\tsaid<br \/>\nproperty  cannot  be  sold or distributed to  discharge\t the<br \/>\nliability of the notified person.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehtas case (supra) has<br \/>\nheld :\n<\/p>\n<p>    If\tin  the property belonging to a notified  person,<br \/>\nanother\t person\t has  a\t share or interest,  that  share  or<br \/>\ninterest is not extinguished.  Of course, if the interest of<br \/>\nthe  notified  person  in the property is  not\ta  severable<br \/>\ninterest,  the\tentire\tproperty may be attached.   But\t the<br \/>\nproceeds  from which distribution will be made under Section<br \/>\n11(2)  can  only be the proceeds in relation to\t the  right,<br \/>\ntitle  and interest of the notified person in that property.<br \/>\nThe  interest  of  a third party in  the  attached  property<br \/>\ncannot\tbe sold or distributed to discharge the\t liabilities<br \/>\nof  the\t notified person.  This would also be  the  position<br \/>\nwhen  the  property is already mortgaged or pledged  on\t the<br \/>\ndate  of attachment to a bank or to any third party.   This,<br \/>\nhowever,  is  subject  to the right of the  Custodian  under<br \/>\nSection\t 4  to\tset  aside the transaction  of\tmortgage  or<br \/>\npledge.\t  Unless  the  Custodian exercises his\tpower  under<br \/>\nSection\t 4,  the  right\t acquired by a third  party  in\t the<br \/>\nattached   property  prior  to\t attachment  does  not\t get<br \/>\nextinguished  nor  does the property vest in  the  Custodian<br \/>\nwhether\t free from encumbrances or otherwise.  The ownership<br \/>\nof the property remains as it was.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Therefore,\twe  are\t of the opinion that so far  as\t the<br \/>\nsecured creditors are concerned, subject to the right of the<br \/>\nCustodian  under Section 4 of the Act, they are entitled  to<br \/>\nrecover\t the  amounts due to them (principal  and  interest)<br \/>\nfrom  the  property secured in their favour  without  taking<br \/>\nrecourse  to Section 11 of the Act.  But if the security  is<br \/>\nnot  large  though to extinguish their debt, they  can\tseek<br \/>\npayment\t of  the shortfall only under section 11(2)  of\t the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For\t the reasons stated above, these appeals are  partly<br \/>\nallowed, to the extent indicated hereinabove.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001 Author: S Hegde Bench: S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4785 of 1998 PETITIONER: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CUSTODIAN &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/04\/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde &amp; [&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-15009","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>Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001 - 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\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-13T16:49:31+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-13T16:49:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1391,\"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\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001\",\"name\":\"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-13T16:49:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001 - 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\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-13T16:49:31+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-13T16:49:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001"},"wordCount":1391,"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\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001","name":"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-13T16:49:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Standard Chartered Bank vs The Custodian &amp; Ors on 17 April, 2001"}]},{"@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\/15009","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=15009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}