{"id":160746,"date":"2002-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002"},"modified":"2016-04-24T05:11:42","modified_gmt":"2016-04-23T23:41:42","slug":"topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002<\/div>\n
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3654-58 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nTOPLINE SHOES LTD.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCORPORATION BANK\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/07\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nD.P. MOHAPATRA & BRIJESH KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2002 (3) SCR 1167<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted. Heard appellant in person and the learned
\ncounsel for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated April 9, 2001 passed
\nby the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the
\nrevision filed by the appellant. The short point in controversy is, as to
\nwhether or not the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, could
\ngrant time to the respondent to file his reply, beyond a total period of 45
\ndays, in view of Section 13 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986
\n(for short the Act).\n<\/p>\n
The appellant filed a complaint before the Gujarat State Consumer Redressal
\nCommission, claiming compensation against the respondent, on account of
\nalleged failure on the part of the respondent in advancing the loan to the
\nappellant despite of furnishing the security for the same. The respondent
\nreceived notice, issued by the Commission, on 22.2.2000. According to the
\nsaid notice 4.4.2000 was the date fixed before the State Commission. The
\nrespondent appeared on 4.4.2000 and moved an application for adjournment of
\nthe case and grant of time to file reply. The case was adjourned for
\n4.5.2000. On the said date, namely, 4.5.20CO, the respondent-Bank filed its
\nreply. The appellant thereafter seems to have filed their rejoinder to the
\nreply filed by the respondent. On the next date, namely, 24.7.2000 the
\nappellant moved an application before the State Commission saying that the
\nreply filed by the respondent was beyond a period of 30 days initially
\nadmissible for filing reply and also beyond a further period of 15 days as
\ncould be extended for the purpose. Hence, it was prayed that the reply of
\nthe respondent may not be accepted on record and the rejoinder filed by the
\nappellant may also be returned to it. According to the appellant, a total
\nperiod of time for filing of reply could not exceed beyond 45 days, as per
\nSection 13 (2)(a) of the Act. The application was, however, rejected by the
\nState Commission but a cost of Rs. 500 was imposed upon the respondent for
\nlate filing of the reply.\n<\/p>\n
While refusing the prayer to reject the reply, the Commission observed that
\nthe delay did not appear to be gross or contrary to the order passed
\ngranting adjournment on 4.4.2000. The Commission further observed that the
\ndiscretion vested to extend time for 15 days could be exercised from time
\nto time as the occasion may require and for arriving at this conclusion,
\nthe State Commission has relied upon decisions of this Court reported in
\nNational Sewing Thread Co., Chidambaram v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. AIR<\/a>
\n(1953) SC 357 and Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay,
\nAIR<\/a> (1961) SC 4 as well as on Section 14 of the General Clauses Act. It has
\nalso been observed that these are matters of procedure which are hand-made
\nof justice. The revision preferred against the said order before the
\nNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was dismissed as it was
\nconsidered that no ground was made out to interfere in exercise of its
\nrevisional jurisdictions.\n<\/p>\n
Shri H.M.G. Murthy who appeared in person for the appellant, submitted that
\nthe State Commission had no power to accept a reply filed beyond a total
\nperiod of 45 days. Initially the respondent is required to submit the reply
\nwithin 30 days which period could be extended not exceeding 15 days as
\nwould be evident from the plain and bare reading of Section 13 (2) (a) of
\nthe Act. It is also submitted that the discretion vested in the
\nForum\/Commission to extend the time cannot be exercised from time to time
\nas held by the State Commission since that would frustrate the purpose of
\nthe provision itself. The case of the Respondent is that the provision
\nfixing a period for submission<\/p>\n
TOPLINE SHOES LTD. v. CORPORATION BANK<\/a> [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.]  1171<\/p>\n
of reply, is only procedural in nature, and it cannot be interpreted in a
\nmanner so as to deprive a party of being heard on merits of his case. It is
\nalso submitted, on facts, that the notice was received on 22.2.2000 and the
\nappellant was required to be present before the State Commission on
\n4.4.2000 that is to say after a period of 30 days. On application for
\nadjournment the time was extended upto 4.5.2000. The respondent had
\nsubmitted his reply within the time allowed. Extension was sought only
\nonce. The appellant had also filed their rejoinder to the reply. There was
\ntherefore no occasion to plead that the written statement be rejected and
\nthe rejoinder of the appellant be returned.\n<\/p>\n
We may peruse the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer
\nProtection Act, 1986. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Section\n<\/p>\n
13.——————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section
\n(2)—————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to
\ngive his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such
\nextended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the
\nDistrict Forum;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint,
\nreferred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations
\ncontained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to
\nrepresent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the
\nDistrict Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute,-\n<\/p>\n
(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and
\nthe opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the
\nallegations contained in the complaint, or<\/p>\n
(ii) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant
\nwhere the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his
\ncase within the time given by the Forum.\n<\/p>\n
A reading of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 no doubt makes it
\nclear that the District Forum would give time of 30 days to the opposite
\nparty for the purposes of giving his version. An extension of time for
\nfiling reply could be granted but not exceeding 15 days. Thus the total
\nperiod during which the reply can be filed is 45 days after extension of
\nfifteen days is granted. The question which however arises is as to whether
\nthe provision prescribing limit for filing reply is mandatory or directory
\nin nature. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Consumer Protection
\nAct, 1986 indicates that it has been enacted to promote and protect the
\nrights and interests of consumers and to provide them speedy and simple
\nredressal of their grievances. Hence, quasi-judicial machinery has been set
\nup for the purpose, at different levels. These quasi-judicial bodies have
\nto observe the principles of natural justice as per clause (4) of the
\nStatement of Objects and Reasons which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-
\njudicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and
\nCentral levels. These quasi-judicial bodies will observe the principles of
\nnatural justice and have been empowered to given relief of a specific
\nnature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers.
\nPenalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi-judicial
\nbodies have also been provided,” (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Thus the intention to provide a time frame to file reply, is really meant
\nto expedite the hearing of such matters and to avoid unnecessary
\nadjournments to linger on the proceedings on the pretext of filing reply.
\nThe provision however, as framed, does not indicate that it is mandatory in
\nnature. In case the extended time exceeds 15 days, no penal consequences
\nare prescribed therefor. The period of extension of time “not exceeding 15
\ndays,” does not prescribe any kind of period of limitation. The provision
\nappears to be directory in nature, which the consumer forums are ordinarily
\nsupposed to apply, in the proceedings before them. We do not find force in
\nthe submission made by the appellant, in person, that in no event,
\nwhatsoever, the reply of the respondent could be taken on record beyond the
\nperiod of 45 days. The provision is more by way of procedure to achieve the
\nobject of speedy disposal of such disputes. It is an expression of
\n“desirability” in strong terms. But it falls short of creating of any kind
\nof substantive right in favour of the complainant by reason of which the
\nrespondent may be debarred from placing his version in defence in any
\ncircumstances whatsoever. It is for the Forum or the Commission to consider
\nall facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing
\ntime frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its
\ndiscretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object
\nof speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind principles of natural
\njustice as well. The Forum may refuse to extend time beyond 15 days, in
\nview of Section 13(2) (a) of the Act but exceeding the period of 15 days of
\nextension, would not cause any fatal illegality in the order.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed on a few decisions of
\nthis Court reported in AIR 1980 S.C. 303 Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone.
\nThe<\/a> case relates to election dispute under the Representation of People
\nAct, and non-compliance of requirements as provided, such provisions were
\nheld to be mandatory in nature. Specific consequences as a result of non-
\ncompliance, were provided for. It is also observed that normally procedural
\nrules should not be considered as mandatory in nature. The election law is
\na technical law which also provides consequences of non-compliance of
\ncertain provisions but in the present case we find that no consequence is
\nprovided in case the time granted to file reply exceeds total period of 45
\ndays. It may at best can be said to be an irregular way of exercise of
\ndiscretion. Normally the Forum or Commission would act in accordance with
\nthe provision relating to procedural matters and while considering the
\nquestion whether any further rime may or may not be granted, it would be
\nrelevant to take into account the limit placed for extension of time in
\naccordance with the provisions of the Act. In the absence of any penal
\nconsequences to follow, it will not be open for the appellant to contend
\nthat the reply filed by the respondent within the time granted though
\nbeyond 45 days, is liable to be rejected. The appellant therefore cannot
\nderive any help from the decision referred to above. The other case which
\nhas been relied upon is reported in AIR 1986 S.C. 1370 Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and Ors. Our<\/a> attention has been drawn
\nto the observations made by the Court that the proper way to interpret a
\nStatute is to give due weight to the use, as well as the omission, to use
\nthe qualifying words in different provisions of the Act. The provision of
\nthe Statute has to be read in the plain and simple manner and in the light
\nof the purpose which is sought to be achieved by the enactment. This case
\nalso does not take the case of the appellant any further in view of
\ndiscussion earlier. Yet another case referred to is reported in AIR 1959
\nS.C. 198 Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and Ors. v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf,
\nU.P. and Ors. It<\/a> has also no application to the present case. Our attention
\nhas particularly been drawn to Paragraph 17 wherein it has been observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“………These decisions illustrate the principle that where the literal
\nmeaning of the words used in a statutory provision would manifestly defeat
\nits object by making a part of it meaningless and ineffective, it is
\nlegitimate and even necessary to adopt the rule of liberal construction so
\nas to give meaning to all parts of the provision and to make the whole of
\nit effective and operative”\n<\/p>\n
The above observations may perhaps help more to the respondent’s stand.
\nLearned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, placed
\nreliance on a decision reported in AIR 1955 S.C. 425 Sangram Singh v.
\nElection Tribunt Kotah and Anr. The<\/a> matter relates to an election petition
\nwhere ex parte proceedings were ordered. This Court as a general
\nproposition of interpretation of Statutes observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is ‘procedure’
\nsomething designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal
\nenactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people
\nup. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for
\nreasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against
\n(provided always that justice is done to ‘both sides’) lest the very means
\ndesigned for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it.\n<\/p>\n
Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of
\nprocedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires
\nthat men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be
\nreached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and
\nproperty should not continue in their absence and that they should not be
\nprecluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions
\nand where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken
\nby and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be
\nconstrued, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that
\nprinciple”\n<\/p>\n
Another decision relied upon on behalf of the respondent is reported in
\n[1985] 3 SCC 53 Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta.
\nThe<\/a> tenant had failed to deposit the rent within the time permitted under
\nthe provisions of the Act. It was held that period of 15 days as provided
\nwas directory in nature. The Court had discretion to extend the period in
\nsuitable cases.\n<\/p>\n
We have already noticed that the provision as contained under clause (a) of
\nsub-section (2) of Section 13 is procedural in nature. It is also clear
\nthat with a view to achieve the object of the enactment, that there may be
\nspeedy disposal of such cases, it has been provided that reply is to be
\nfiled within 30 days and the extension of time may not exceed 15 days. This
\nprovision envisages that proceedings may not be prolonged for a very long
\ntime without the opposite party having filed his reply. No penal
\nconsequences have however been provided in case extension of time exceeds
\n15 days. Therefore, it could not be said that any substantive right accrued
\nin favour of the appellant or there was any kind of bar of limitation in
\nfiling of the reply within extended time though beyond 45 days in all. The
\nreply is not necessarily to be rejected. All facts and circumstances of the
\ncase must be taken into account. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
\nthe Act also provides that principles of natural justice have also to be
\nkept in mind.\n<\/p>\n
We would like to observe that the decision of this Court in the cases of
\nNational Sewing Thread Co. and Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala (supra) would
\nnot be applicable to the case in hand. In those cases it was held that a
\npower which is vested in the Court can be exercised repeatedly in the
\nabsence of intention to the contrary contained in the Statute. Such a
\nquestion is not involved in the present case. The power to extend time
\nunder Clause (a) is with a rider that the extension may not exceed 15 days.
\nWe have, however, already held that the provision saying that extended time
\nmay not exceed 15 days is directory in nature. It does not mean that orders
\nextending the time to file reply may be passed repeatedly unmindful of and
\ntotally ignoring the provision that the extension may not exceed 15 days.
\nThis provision has always to be kept in mind while passing an order
\nextending the time to file a reply to the petition. It is another matter,
\nas we have found that in case time is extended exceeding 15 days, it may
\nnot be kind of an illegality which may deny or deprive the respondent to
\nfile his reply within the time granted by the Forum\/Commission.\n<\/p>\n
So far the facts of the present case are concerned, we find that at the
\nfirst instance the Commission itself had fixed the date beyond 30 days and
\nthe respondent sought further time which prayer was accepted and 4.5.2000
\nwas fixed. The respondent filed his reply on the date fixed. In such
\ncircumstances there was no occasion to contend that the reply of the
\nrespondent should be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
For the discussion held above, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is
\ndismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002 Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3654-58 of 2002 PETITIONER: TOPLINE SHOES LTD. RESPONDENT: CORPORATION BANK DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/07\/2002 BENCH: D.P. MOHAPATRA & BRIJESH KUMAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 (3) SCR 1167 The Judgment of the Court was […]<\/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-160746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTopline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002 - 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\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-23T23:41:42+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T23:41:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2771,\"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\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T23:41:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002 - 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\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-23T23:41:42+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T23:41:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002"},"wordCount":2771,"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\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002","name":"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T23:41:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/topline-shoes-ltd-vs-corporation-bank-on-8-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/160746","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=160746"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160746\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}