{"id":161065,"date":"2010-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-29T19:24:15","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T13:54:15","slug":"provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/3046\/2007\t 7\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\n IN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3046 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPROVIDENT\nFUND COMISSIONER - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDENA\nBANK THRO.ITS MANAGER & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNK MAJMUDAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR SS PANESAR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nZUBIN F BHARDA for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
This
\n\tpetition is filed by the Provident Fund Commissioner challenging
\n\torders dated 22.11.2006 and 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Recovery
\n\tOfficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Recovery Proceedings
\n\tNo.1329 in O.A. No. 268\/2001. The said orders are questioned on the
\n\tground that same are contrary to provisions of Section 11(2) of the
\n\tEmployees’ Provident Fund Act( the Act  for short). The
\n\tpetitioner has further prayed for a direction to respondent no.3
\n\ti.e. the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad to
\n\treconsider the objections lodged by the petitioner and to pass
\n\tfurther orders after taking into account such objections.\n<\/p>\n
Shortly
\n\tstated, facts leading to the petition are that there are unpaid
\n\tProvident Fund dues of respondent no.2 company. According to the
\n\tpetitioner, such unpaid provident fund dues form first charge over
\n\tthe movable and immovable properties of the respondent company.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tRespondent
\n\tno.1 Dena Bank claims to be a secured creditor of respondent no.2
\n\tcompany. The respondent no.1 bank had given loans to respondent no.2
\n\tby hypothecating its movable assets as well as by mortgaging its
\n\timmovable properties. In view of such hypothecation as well as
\n\tmortgage created by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.1
\n\tbank, as per the bank, it is the bank which has the first charge
\n\tover the properties.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tThe
\n\tbank had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking recovery of
\n\tits unpaid dues in the said proceedings by filing O.A. No. 26\/2001.
\n\tIn the said proceedings, Recovery Certificate came to be issued in
\n\tfavour of respondent No.1 bank to the tune of Rs. 3,62,56,297. On an
\n\tapplication filed by respondent no.1 bank, the Recovery Officer
\n\tpermitted the bank  to sale the properties of respondent no.2
\n\tcompany through auction. Provident Fund Department raised its
\n\tobjections contending inter-alia that as on 3.1.2005, the
\n\toutstanding recovery of Rs.21,99,728\/- plus cost and interest
\n\ttowards the Provident fund dues remained unpaid. The Recovery
\n\tOfficer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected said objections by
\n\tan order dated 22.11.2006 in following terms :\n<\/p>\n
 The
\n\tEmployees Provident Fund Organization vide Exh. T\/29 and Exh. T\/30
\n\thad also raised objection and submitted that they have attached the
\n\tproperty in question on 3.1.2005 to recover its dues of Rs.
\n\t21,88,728\/- plus cost and interest. The Employees Provident Fund
\n\tOrganization submitted that his dues having priority over other
\n\tdebts under Section 11(2) o the Employees Provident Fund
\n\tOrganization Act and claimed the amount out of the sale proceeds of
\n\tthe property sold in auction by this Tribunal. The Employees
\n\tProvident Fund Organization cited before me a judgement of the Debts
\n\tRecovery Tribunal, Mumbai wherein the Hon’ble Presiding Officer has
\n\trelied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court passed in
\n\tAppeal No. 906\/1994 and observed that the Employees Provident Fund
\n\tOrganization shall have first and permanent charge over the above
\n\tthe charge of even secured creditors.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tCertificate Holder bank cited before me the judgement of the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court in a matter of Dena Bank v\/s. Bhikabhau Prabhudas
\n\tParekh & co. (2000) 5 SCC. 694 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
\n\theld that the crown’s preferential right to recovery of debts over
\n\tother creditors is confined to ordinary or unsecured creditors and
\n\tsuch right does not exists over the mortgage or pledged property of
\n\ta  secured creditors.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\trelied upon the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex court and
\n\tfound that Employees Provident Fund Organization is under a category
\n\tof unsecured creditor, hence cannot precedence over the dues of the
\n\tCertificate Holder Bank who is a secured creditor. Moreover, the
\n\tjudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is prevailing over the
\n\tjudgment of Hon’ble High Court and the Recovery of Debts due to
\n\tbanks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 is subsequent to Employees
\n\tProvident Fund Organization and M.P. Act. Hence the provision of
\n\tlater Act will prevail over the previous Act.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tmy opinion the Recovery Officer is not suppose to work for recovery
\n\tof dues of other depts like Central Excise Dept. and Employees
\n\tProvident Fund Organization. The Recovery Officer is bound to
\n\trecover the bank dues as per Recovery Certificate under the
\n\tprovisions of Section 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts due to bank
\n\tand Financial Institute Act 1993. This debt is supposed to do
\n\tseparate action for recovery of the dues as per respective rules.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tthe objections of Central Excise Debt. and Employees Provident Fund
\n\tOrganization are not maintainable hence hereby rejected and the sale
\n\tproceeds of Rs. 48. lacs towards the sale of hypothecated movable
\n\tbeing Plant and Machinery shall be released to the  Certificate
\n\tHolder bank for appropriation against the loan A\/c. of the
\n\tCertificate debtors and file an affidavit appropriately on the next
\n\tdate.\n<\/p>\n
Let
\n\tthe matter be adjourned till 08-12-2006 for further orders due.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\t8.12.2006, the said officer permitted the bank to sale the property
\n\tand authorised the above officer to make proclamation of the sale.
\n\tThese orders dated  22.11.2006 and 8.12.2006 passed by the Recovery
\n\tOfficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Recovery Proceedings
\n\tNo.1329 in O.A. No. 268\/2001 are under challenge in the present
\n\tpetition.\n<\/p>\n
Appearing
\n\tfor the petitioner, learned counsel Shri Majmudar submitted that the
\n\tprovident fund dues of respondent no.2  would have priority over all
\n\tother dues being crown debt. He contended that in view of Section
\n\t11(2) of the Act, Provident Fund department had the first charge
\n\tover the properties. Recovery Officer therefore, erred in rejecting
\n\tthe objections of the petitioner and both the impugned orders are
\n\ttherefore, required to be set aside. He relied on decision of the
\n\tApex Court in case of Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala
\n\tand others<\/a> reported in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 94.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand, learned advocate Shri Panesar for the respondent
\n\tbank contested the petition contending inter-alia that bank had
\n\treleased the loans in favour of respondent no.2 company. Large
\n\tamounts had remained unpaid. The  Bank had created charge over the
\n\tproperties. In view of hypothecation and mortgage, bank would have
\n\tthe charge first over the property of the company. He further
\n\tcontended that the petitioner has not given any account of the
\n\toutstanding provident fund dues of the respondent no.2 company. The
\n\tpetitioner has in addition to principal sum added exorbitant
\n\tinterest and penalties and thus inflated initial figure of Rs.
\n\t21,88,728\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Having
\n\tthus heard learned advocates for the parties, we find that Section
\n\t11(2) of the Act reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
 11(2)
\n\tWithout prejudice to the provisions of sub-section(1), if any amount
\n\tis due from an employer[whether in respect of the employee’s
\n\tcontribution (deducted from the wages of the employee) or the
\n\temployer’s contribution], the amount so due shall be deemed to be
\n\tthe first charge on the assets of the establishment, and shall,
\n\tnotwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
\n\tbeing force, be paid in priority to all other debts.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above clear statutory provision,  the ratio laid down in
\n\tdecision of the Apex Court Central Bank of India v. State of
\n\tKerala and others (supra) would squarely apply in the present
\n\tcase. In the said decision, the Apex Court had examined at length
\n\tvarious provisions contained in Legislature such as Bombay Sales Tax
\n\tAct, Kerala General Sales Tax Act, Workmen’s Compensation Act and
\n\tEmployees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, etc.
\n\tproviding for the priority of the State dues. These provisions were
\n\texamine in juxtaposition of the provisions contained in Recovery of
\n\tDebts Due Banks and Financial Institutions Act. The Apex Court in
\n\tthe said decision held that neither in the  Recovery of Debts Due
\n\tBanks and Financial Institutions Act nor in the Secularization and
\n\tReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
\n\tInterest Act , there is  any provision by which first charge has
\n\tbeen created in favor of banks, financial institutions or secured
\n\tcreditors qua the property of the borrower. It was held that :\n<\/p>\n
 116.\tThe
\nnon obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and
\nSection 35 of the Securitisation Act give overriding effect to the
\nprovisions of those Acts only if there is anything inconsistent
\ncontained in any other law or instrument having effect by virtue of
\nany other law. In other words, if there is no provision in the other
\nenactments which are inconsistent with the DRT Act or Securitisation
\nAct, the provisions contained in those Acts cannot override other
\nlegislations. Section 38C of the Bombay Act and Section 26B of the
\nKerala Act also contain non obstante clauses and give statutory
\nrecognition to the priority of State’s charge over other debts, which
\nwas recognized by Indian High Courts even before 1950. In other
\nwords, these sections and similar provisions contained in other State
\nlegislations not only create first charge on the property of the
\ndealer or any other person liable to pay sales tax, etc. but also
\ngive them overriding effect over other laws <\/p>\n
 \tIn
\nthe said decision, particularly, with respect to Section 11(2) of the
\n Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, it was
\nobserved as under :\n<\/p>\n
 126.\tWhile
\nenacting the DRT Act and Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of
\nthe law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues
\nwas recognized. If Parliament intended to create first charge in
\nfavour of banks, financial institutions or other secured creditors on
\nthe property of the borrower, then it would have incorporated a
\nprovision like Section 529A of the Companies Act or Section 11(2) of
\nthe EPF Act and ensured that notwithstanding series of judicial
\npronouncements, dues of banks, financial institutions and other
\nsecured creditors should have priority over the State’s statutory
\nfirst charge in the matter of recovery of the dues of sales tax, etc.
\n   However, the fact of the matter is that no such provision has been
\nincorporated in either of these enactments despite conferment of
\nextraordinary power upon the secured creditors to take possession and
\ndispose of the secured assets without the intervention of the Court
\nor Tribunal. The reason for this omission appears to be that the new
\nlegal regime envisages transfer of secured assets to private
\ncompanies.\n<\/p>\n
129<\/span><\/p>\n
 If Parliament intended to give priority to the dues of banks,
\nfinancial institutions and other secured creditors over the first
\ncharge created under State legislations then provisions similar to
\nthose contained in Section 14A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
\n1923, Section 11(2) of the EPF Act, Section 74(1) of the Estate Duty
\nAct, 1953, Section 25(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
\nRegulation) Act, 1957, Section 30 of the Gift- Tax Act, and Section
\n529A of the Companies Act, 1956 would have been incorporated in the
\nDRT Act and Securitisation Act.\n<\/p>\n
130<\/span><\/p>\n
Undisputedly, the two enactments do not contain provision similar to
\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act, etc. In the absence of any<\/p>\n
specific
\nprovision to that effect, it is not possible to read any conflict or
\ninconsistency or overlapping between the provisions of the DRT Act
\nand Securitisation Act on the one hand and Section 38C of the Bombay
\nAct and Section 26B of the Kerala Act on the other and the non
\nobstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and
\nSection 35 of the Securitisation Act cannot be invoked for declaring
\nthat the first charge created under the State legislation will not
\noperate qua or affect the proceedings initiated by banks, financial
\ninstitutions and other secured creditors for recovery of their dues
\nor enforcement of security interest, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
Above
\nratio laid down in Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and
\nothers<\/a> (supra), squarely covers the present case.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\tare not oblivious to the other line of decisions wherein in absence
\n\tof any statutory provisions, Courts have held that the crown debt
\n\twould not have any priority over other secured creditor’s debts.
\n\tThis view was reiterated and expressed by the Apex Court in case of
\n\tUnion of India and others v. SICOM Limited and<\/a> another reported
\n\tin (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 121, the Apex Court held that a debt
\n\twhich is  secured or which by reason of the provisions of statue
\n\tbecomes the first charge over the property having regard to the
\n\tplain meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution of India must be
\n\theld to prevail over the crown debt which is an unsecured one. Said
\n\tdecision was however, rendered in the background of statutory
\n\tprovisions contained in the State Financial Corporations Act  by
\n\twhich the borrower had executed mortgage in favor of such
\n\tCorporation. Later on it was found that borrower also owed a certain
\n\tsum of  money to Central Government in the form of Central Excise
\n\tdues. It was in this background that the Apex Court noticing the
\n\tstatutory provisions contained in the State Financial Corporations
\n\tAct as well as under the Central Excise Act came to the above
\n\tconclusion. This decision in case of  Union of India and others
\n\tv. SICOM Limited and<\/a> another(supra)has
\n\tbeen noticed by the Apex Court in earlier decision in case of
\n\tCentral Bank of India v. State of Kerala and others<\/a>
\n\t(supra) and distinguished on
\n\taccount of difference in statutory provisions with which the Court
\n\twas concerned in the former decision.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe present case, when we find that statute in clear terms provides
\n\tfor priority of unpaid dues of provident fund of the employees, in
\n\tview of the decision in case of Central Bank of India v. State of
\n\tKerala and others<\/a> (supra),
\n\tbank cannot claim first charge despite having created a mortgage
\n\tover the immovable property.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe result, we find that recovery officer of Debts Recovery
\n\tTribunal, Ahmedabad committed a serious error in overruling the
\n\tobjections of the petitioner PF Department. Orders dated  22.11.2006
\n\tand 8.12.2006 are quashed. Petition is allowed. It is further
\n\tdeclared that provident fund dues would have first charge over the
\n\tproperties in question.  In facts of the present case, it is
\n\tdirected that provident fund department shall before effecting
\n\trecovery  of its dues, serve a statement of account of the unpaid
\n\tprovident fund dues with interest and penalty, if any,  of the
\n\tCompany on respondent no.1 bank.\n<\/p>\n
Petition
\n\tis disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above extent.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,C.J.)<\/p>\n
(Akil
\nKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n
(raghu)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3046\/2007 7\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3046 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nProvident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010 - 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\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-29T13:54:15+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T13:54:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2359,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T13:54:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010 - 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\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-29T13:54:15+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T13:54:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010"},"wordCount":2359,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010","name":"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T13:54:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/provident-vs-dena-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Provident vs Dena on 22 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/161065","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=161065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}