{"id":159714,"date":"1999-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999"},"modified":"2015-05-20T17:45:12","modified_gmt":"2015-05-20T12:15:12","slug":"state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.T. Nanavati, S.N. Phukan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5069-5070 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBALLABH DAS AND CO. AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nG.T. NANAVATI &amp; S.N. PHUKAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1999 Supp(2) SCR 465<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>G.T. NANAVATI, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant bank filed two civil suits &#8211; one against Ballabh Das &amp; Sons<br \/>\nand its partners and the other against Ballabh Das &amp; Co. and its partners &#8211;<br \/>\nin the Court of District Judge at Jaipur for recovery of its dues of Rs.<br \/>\n75,46,921 and Rs. 56,36,200 on 24.3.83 and 2.7.84 respectively. During the<br \/>\npendency of the suits, Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial<br \/>\nInstitutions Ordinance, 1993 was promulgated by the President of India on<br \/>\n24.6.1993. It was replaced by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and<br \/>\nFinancial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short referred to as `the Act&#8217;).<br \/>\nAfter Debt Recovery Tribunal was constituted under the Act at Jaipur, the<br \/>\nappellants made two applications on 20.9.94 to the Court for getting the<br \/>\ntwo suits transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court by two<br \/>\nseparate orders allowed the applications and directed transfer of those<br \/>\nsuits to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jaipur but retained the counter<br \/>\nclaim filed by the respondents in Civil Suit No. 152 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>Feeling aggrieved by those orders the respondents filed two revisions<br \/>\napplications (669 of 1995 and 670 of 1995) before the Rajasthan High Court.<br \/>\nThe High Court held that the question whether the amounts claimed in the<br \/>\nsuits are legally recoverable of not is a question of fact and can be<br \/>\nadjudicated only after recording evidence. It further held that whether the<br \/>\namounts claimed fall within the meaning of the term `debt&#8217; as defined by<br \/>\nSection 2 (g) of the Act is also a question of fact and till those facts<br \/>\nare decided by the Court the provisions of the Act cannot be said to have<br \/>\nbecome applicable to the suits on and from the date on which the Tribunal<br \/>\nat Jaipur was established. It also held that Civil Suit No. 152 of 1988 in<br \/>\nwhich a counter claim has been filed could not have been transferred to the<br \/>\nTribunal, as no application was made under Order 8 Rule 6 C of the Code of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure for exclusion of the counter claim and also because no such<br \/>\napplication could be made after framing of issues. Taking this view the<br \/>\nHigh Court allowed both the revisions applications and by a common judgment<br \/>\nset aside the orders passed by the District Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant Bank has filed<br \/>\nthese appeals. It was contended by Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the<br \/>\nBank, that the High Court has wrongly criticized the District Court by<br \/>\nobserving that it had over-looked the provisions of the law. In his<br \/>\nsubmission it is really the High Court which has over-looked the relevant<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act and erroneously allowed the revision applications. He<br \/>\nsubmitted that the suits being proceedings for recovery of debts alleged to<br \/>\nbe due, the Civil Court ceased to have any jurisdiction to deal with them<br \/>\non merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is not in dispute that the respondents, under the export credit facility<br \/>\nwith the appellant bank, was obtaining advances from the appellant-bank<br \/>\nfrom time to time against pre-shipment and post-shipment exports of<br \/>\nprecious stones, jewellery, diamonds etc. It is also not in dispute that<br \/>\nthere was non-payment to the bank by the foreign buyers of the bills<br \/>\nmentioned in the two suits. The defence of the respondents is that under<br \/>\nthe insurance cover obtained at the instance of the bank from the Export<br \/>\nCredit Guarantee Corporation, the bank is insured against any loss on<br \/>\naccount of non-realization of amounts from foreign buyers and on delivery<br \/>\nby the respondents to the bank of documents of export of goods for which<br \/>\nthe credit was given or advances were made are to be deemed to be payments<br \/>\nby the respondents to the Bank. The respondents had delivered the documents<br \/>\nin respect of the suit transactions to the bank and, therefore, the amounts<br \/>\nmentioned in those documents should be deemed to have paid to the bank. But<br \/>\nthe fact that the amounts claimed under the two suits have not been<br \/>\nreceived by the bank and are still outstanding is not in dispute as can be<br \/>\nnoticed from the admissions made by the respondents in paragraphs 4 and 5<br \/>\nof the counter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>The question which arises for consideration is whether in view of these<br \/>\nfacts the amounts claimed by the bank in the suits can be said to be `debt&#8217;<br \/>\ndue and recoverable by the bank from the respondents. Section 2(g) of the<br \/>\nAct defines the term `debt&#8217; as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; &#8220;debt&#8221; means any liability which is alleged as due from any person by a<br \/>\nbank&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or<br \/>\nwhether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or otherwise and<br \/>\nsubsisting on, and legally be recoverably on, the date of the application.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 17 of the Act provides that a Tribunal shall exercise, on and from<br \/>\nthe appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and<br \/>\ndecide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery<br \/>\nof debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Section 18 has<br \/>\ncreated a bar that no Court or other authority can thereafter exercise any<br \/>\njurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High<br \/>\nCourt exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. In<br \/>\nrespect of pending cases Section 31 provides as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Transfer of pending cases.-(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending<br \/>\nbefore any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal<br \/>\nunder this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it<br \/>\nis based is such that it would have been, if it had arised after such<br \/>\nestablishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand<br \/>\ntransferred on that date to such Tribunal;\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending<br \/>\nas aforesaid before any court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) Where any suit or other proceedings stands transferred from any court<br \/>\nto a Tribunal under sub-section (1),<\/p>\n<p>(a)    the court shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the<br \/>\nrecords of such suit or other proceeding to the Tribunal; and<\/p>\n<p>(b)    the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with<br \/>\nsuch suit or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in<br \/>\nthe case of an application made under section 19 from the stage which was<br \/>\nreached before such transfer or from any earlier stage of de-novo as the<br \/>\nTribunal may deem fit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 34 gives the Act an overriding effect by enacting that the Act<br \/>\nshall have effect nowithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained<br \/>\nin any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having<br \/>\neffect by virtue of any law.\n<\/p>\n<p>According to the definition, the term `debt&#8217; means liability which is<br \/>\nalleged as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a<br \/>\nconsortium of banks or financial institutions. It should have arisen during<br \/>\nthe course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial<br \/>\ninstitution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force.<br \/>\nThe liability to be discharged may be in cash or otherwise. It would be<br \/>\nimmaterial whether the liability is secured or unsecured or whether it is<br \/>\npayable under a decree or an order of any Civil Court or otherwise.<br \/>\nHowever, it should be subsisting and legally recoverable on the date on<br \/>\nwhich proceedings are initiated for recovering the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>The important words in the definition &#8220;alleged as due&#8221; have been over<br \/>\nlooked by the High Court and, therefore, it has erroneously held that<br \/>\nunless the amounts claimed by the bank are determined or decided by a<br \/>\ncompetent forum they cannot be said to be due and would not amount to<br \/>\n`debt&#8217; under the Act. What was necessary for the High Court to consider was<br \/>\nwhether the bank was alleged in the suits that the amounts are due to the<br \/>\nbank from the respondents, that the liability of the respondent has arisen<br \/>\nduring the course of its business activity, that the said liability is<br \/>\nstill subsisting and legally recoverable.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court should have appreciated that the bank has alleged in the<br \/>\nsuits &#8211; plaints that the respondents had borrowed money for the goods<br \/>\nexported under the bills referred to in the suits and that the amounts<br \/>\npayable under the bills have not been paid by the foreign buyer to the bank<br \/>\nunder the agreement between the parties and, therefore, they have remained<br \/>\noutstanding. This is the cause of action disclosed in the plaints.<br \/>\nObviously, if this cause of action had arisen after the establishment of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal at Jaipur, then in that case the bank would have been required<br \/>\nto file an application for recovery of the outstanding dues before the<br \/>\nTribunal and not in the Civil Court and the bar created under Section 18<br \/>\nwould have also applied. As the suits were filed by the bank before<br \/>\nestablishment of the Tribunal and were pending in the Civil Court when the<br \/>\nTribunal came to be established under the Act, Section 31 became applicable<br \/>\nto those suits and they shall have to be treated as transferred to the<br \/>\nTribunal on and from that date the Tribunal was established. Section 31 of<br \/>\nthe Act makes it clear that the transfer is automatic because of operation<br \/>\nof law and, therefore, the bank was really not required to file<br \/>\napplications. Those applications should have been really treated as<br \/>\napplications for forwarding the records of the suits to the Tribunal. In<br \/>\nour opinion, the trial Court rightly understood the correct position of law<br \/>\nand passed correct orders on those applications. The High Court took an<br \/>\nerroneous view of the law and wrongly set aside the orders passed by the<br \/>\ntrial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court also failed to appreciate that the defence raised by the<br \/>\nrespondents does not prime facie show that the liabilities stood discharged<br \/>\neither under the insurance cover\/guarantee or otherwise. The defence raised<br \/>\nby the respondents is that the insurance cover\/guarantee provides that<br \/>\ndelivery by the exporter to the insured of documents of export of goods for<br \/>\nwhich the credit has been given or advance has been made shall be deemed to<br \/>\nbe payment by the Exporter to the insured and, therefore, when the<br \/>\nrespondents delivered the export documents to the bank they should be<br \/>\ndeemed to have paid the amounts due under those exports to the bank. This<br \/>\ndefence can be considered only for the limited purpose of finding out<br \/>\nwhether the liability of the respondents was subsisting on the dates on<br \/>\nwhich the suits were filed. Otherwise, it has no relevance for the purpose<br \/>\nof deciding the jurisdiction of the forum. The contract of<br \/>\ninsurance\/guarantee is between the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation<br \/>\nof India Ltd. and the appellant &#8211; bank and prima facie the term\/condition<br \/>\nin the said insurance cover\/guarantee referred to above is for the benefit<br \/>\nof the insurer and not for the benefit of the exporter, i.e. the<br \/>\nrespondents. It does not absolve the respondents of the liability to repay<br \/>\nthe amounts borrowed for the purpose of making exports if the foreign buyer<br \/>\nof those goods does not make payment to the bank of the amounts payable in<br \/>\nrespect of those goods. Though the insurer\/guarantor under the<br \/>\ninsurance\/guarantee possibly would stand discharged from its liability to<br \/>\nthe insured on the exporters delivering the documents of export of goods to<br \/>\nthe insured, prima facie, the principal debtor would still remain<br \/>\nsubsisting. Thus, even this pre-requisite for the liability to be called a<br \/>\ndebt as contemplated by the Act having been satisfied the suits filed by<br \/>\nthe bank should have been treated by the High Court as proceedings for<br \/>\nrecovery of the debts.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the High Court was<br \/>\nwrong in holding that the applications made by the bank were pre-mature and<br \/>\ntill the Court decides that the amounts are still due and payable to the<br \/>\nbank they cannot be treated as suits for recovery of the debts as<br \/>\ncontemplated by the Act and, therefore, they are not required to be<br \/>\ntransferred to the Tribunal. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside<br \/>\nthe judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the orders<br \/>\npassed by the trial Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999 Bench: G.T. Nanavati, S.N. Phukan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5069-5070 of 1999 PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR RESPONDENT: BALLABH DAS AND CO. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1999 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI &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-159714","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>State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999 - 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\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-20T12:15:12+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-20T12:15:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2102,\"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\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999\",\"name\":\"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-20T12:15:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999 - 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\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-20T12:15:12+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-20T12:15:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999"},"wordCount":2102,"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\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999","name":"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-20T12:15:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-and-jaipur-vs-ballabh-das-and-co-and-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Ballabh Das And Co. And Ors on 15 September, 1999"}]},{"@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\/159714","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=159714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}