{"id":167127,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-29T18:18:30","modified_gmt":"2017-01-29T12:48:30","slug":"farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 15'1\"\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYPEEA\n\nR.F.A. No. 679\/2001 (MON)\nBETWEEN:\n\nMRFAROUK YUSUFF,\n\nS \/ O LATE YUSUFF ABDULA.\nAGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.\nRADIO HOUSE,\n\n1 13  BRIGADE} ROAD.\nBANG!-\\LO%~ 560 001.\n\nPRESENT ADDRESS, S \n\nNO.51,\" \"BOv'e'.i'\u00a7;[\u00a7\\E(};::\u00a7i:~10\u00a73'PIffAL 'ROAD,\nBANGALORE: 559.. go 1 .'    ._ - - . . .APPI}3LLANT\n\n[BY SR1 'AB4I3{INA\"J\" R...\" ASVCEIATE FOR\nM\/S. KUMAR & ;\u00a7.:;M.:3R~ASSOc1ATES. ADVOCATES)\n\n '~     2   ..... .. 9\n\n E S\"fm.'1.\u00ab:\"  MYSORE,\n BANKING COIVEPANY INCORPORATED\n\nUNDER _OO.MPANiES ACT.\nHAVING 1'}-'S' HEIAID OWICE: AT\n\n K.G.R=OA;\u00a5), BANGALORE AM)\n ----  A,BRANCi-I OFFICE AMONGST\n  OTHER PLACES AT M.G.ROAD.\n_  'BA?~EGAI,OI{E\u00ab56O 001.\n\n  ~~-RVEPRESENTEI.) BY ITS\n\nB RANC H MANAGER. . . . . . RE?SPONDi\u00a7NT\n\n[BY SR1 .\"I'. S. MAHABALE SW3-XRA, A[)VOCATE)\n\n\n\n2\n\nTHIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC\nAGAINST 'I'HI%3 JUDGMENT AND IJ.Ii}CR}iSE DATED\n28.5.2001<\/pre>\n
 ZPASSIZIJ IN O.S.NO.l’?44\/87 BY “f’l~IE XXIX
\nADDITIONAL, CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCI-I
\nl\\lO.30}, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR MONEY.<\/p>\n
THIS R.F’.A.COMIN’G ON FOR I-IEARING *rI=\u00a7Is<\/p>\n
THE COURT DEI.IVlE)REI) THE I*”OLLOWING:\u00bb  ‘
\nJ U I} G M E N T<\/p>\n
This is de’fer1dam’s  <\/p>\n
correctness of the jucigrI_1er3t47..  I’ <\/p>\n
28.05.2001 passed in 0.8. ll’?-\u00e9lg\ufb01l,\/8?  “of the
\nXXIX, Additional City\n<\/p>\n
2) The Vap’pella;_I1f  isV.tl’I\u00a7_.\ufb01lefendant, and<\/p>\n
the re:3pondA\u00e9fit:VB_aE}k’I.\u00a7”th_e. plairltiff in the court below.
\nFor the’ vvsg\u00e9ltke of I  the parties herein are<\/p>\n
refe;jr\u00e9dI.to  “ranking in the Court below.<\/p>\n
,,     plaintiff is a Natioraaliseci Bank having<\/p>\n
 in 1\\\/LG. Roa\u00e9. The defendant is a<\/p>\n
business ffielfi and also Manager of M \/ 3. Radio House.<\/p>\n
I S_itou\u00a71t;eId at I\\Io.1.13  Brigade Road. Defealdarat and<\/p>\n
—  M Radio House are long si:an.ding custorluars of the<\/p>\n
” .”plaint,il’f havilag their accounts with pl21ini;:iff.<\/p>\n
may’?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\n21%} It is the ease of the plaintiff that the
\ndeferidant approached the plaintiff for grant of housing<\/p>\n
loan to an extent of Rs.1,S0,000\/– for eomplet;io11V;f>his<\/p>\n
house at Koramangala. Since the plaintii’f_iv.asstrict.’<\/p>\n
having” the facility to sanction housing loan}:-._i:t.   <\/p>\n
over draft facility to an Extc\u00e9rit “of t_ Rs.-(3(\u00a7)t,:(il\u20ac}O to’.<\/p>\n
defendant on 28.07.1984, 3Vl1iCl?l”..V\\r;\u00a3tS. <\/p>\n
the defendant. In terms  sanet_io11 :.’ofAt.’o4trterdral’t
\nfacility the defenciant:’:h\\vas  repay the entire
\namount received in the   within 10<\/p>\n
months. Thetsaifzi afmou;a’t \\}Vas5.”re.q_u\u00a7ired to be repaid<\/p>\n
with  it -t is the further case of the
\nplair1t;iff \u00ab that.’ tttoijgii defendant availed overdraft<\/p>\n
faeilit3}, “he did  repay the said amount in terms of the<\/p>\n
.sanetiori,  several reminders were sent to him,<\/p>\n
   duly aelmow}.edged by the deferidarlt.<\/p>\n
“l’herte.ai’ter.; a legal notice was also sent calling upon the<\/p>\n
  de’fe.r1dar1.t to clear the outstandirlg loan, which was not<\/p>\n
  to. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery<\/p>\n
 the outst,andiI1g; amount, of Rs.41,085.37 with interest<\/p>\n
Ml,<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\nrepresented by the defendant in the capacity of a
\nGeneral Manager and he eienieci any eommti.nicai.ion to<\/p>\n
him directiy from the p1aintiff-Bank in his personal<\/p>\n
name calling upon him to pay the 21fores_2*i–id”–Ioa:1<\/p>\n
amount. It is his specific case that he head’ Lroxfowedii V’<\/p>\n
money from the p1aintiff–Bank \u00bbd_ift”e1;en.t’,<\/p>\n
accounts, which he has repaid ‘cor11piet.eIy’.i,i”t11erefor=e,V’–..<\/p>\n
there are no dues from  it is Valisoi that
\nthe plaintiff is not   to have
\nbeen sanctioneci on   either in
\nhis individual’ ori   of M\/s. Radio
\nHouse:’-,   as a General Manager.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore’;    of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
 _’F”mC_,_ouv:::t beiow after completion of<\/p>\n
 ‘pIeadin.gs, trained the following two issues, which are as<\/p>\n
EiZ1Ci\u20aci’I~ ‘ <\/p>\n
i  VW11ethez’ the piaintiff proves that the
\n defendant has avaiied the loan in
\nquestion and has executed necessary
\ndocuments agreeing to pay interest. at<\/p>\n
18% pa with quarteriy rests as<\/p>\n
alieged’?\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
\nrecover the suit claim from the
\ndefendant t0g’et.hei~ with current and-=__<\/p>\n
future interest at i’?.5% p.a.’?\n<\/p>\n
iii) What’ decree or order’?\n<\/p>\n
8) Thereafi:er, on behalf <\/p>\n
officers, namely, KS. LakshInan4anddV.Sri.  Srina’thd”a<\/p>\n
were examined as PWs.1  respeat\ufb01iv eiyddand the
\ndocuments pmdueed   support of its
\ncase were marked as   behaif of the<\/p>\n
defendia11tv,.A1f1’e,eX\u00e9\u00a3min’ed=11i.mse1.f.aais DW.1, no documents<\/p>\n
were  On appreciation of the<\/p>\n
pleadingsdandv oral and\u00ab…doCume11tary evidence available<\/p>\n
  <)r1..'::"e.cor:ci,evp_i'.11e Aeo'L:..rtd..be1ow proceeded to partially decree<\/p>\n
 "Li<1.e'-p_sLI4ii';i;"difee1:ir1g defendant to pay a sum of<\/p>\n
 iivith simple interest at 6% p.a., from the<\/p>\n
",_date "i"nStit.u'\u20ac.ion of the suit: till the date of realisation<\/p>\n
'd'_o.f same and court cost. The appeliani:\/defendant;<\/p>\n
  i3ei11g aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by<\/p>\n
the Court below, defe'nde3"1t has ehailenged the Same in<\/p>\n
this eppeai on the following gI'<)m1ds:<\/p>\n
Q\/'~'\u00a7<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
9) The Court below has not properly
\nappreciated the grounds raised by the defendant whiie<\/p>\n
considering Issue No.2, the burden of proving the–said<\/p>\n
claim is on the plaintiff; that the Court <\/p>\n
wrongly decided the same in favour of the  <\/p>\n
the proper accounts extract is notmpI”edt;aeed <\/p>\n
of the claim; that there is’ Variation in tfie”ae~eoi.;ht,S’~_<\/p>\n
extract from that of the suit”h\u00bbo}aim:   aiso
\nfailure in proper apptrseeiationdddodf ohhthe part of
\nthe Court below; and thet.  f.-has produced<\/p>\n
two e;\u00a7:tfiie’ts}:”3xe’A.:iEf7   are showing different
\nenti*iesVu,’-.desti”oye”the:’vei’j,r.iteundation of p1ain.tiff’ S ease.<\/p>\n
Further, also piedded by the defendant that the<\/p>\n
 ajhelow  “” “failed to appreciate whether the<\/p>\n
 loan to the plaintiff in his<\/p>\n
individu;a.1_d’ifi\u00e9im.e or in the name of General Manager,<\/p>\n
   M\/S. Raelio House.\n<\/p>\n
  }0} In this appeai, the plaintiff was duly served<\/p>\n
  aihd represented by its counsel The entire trial Court<\/p>\n
record was also secured. Wm<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
8<\/span>
\n11} On going through the pleadings and t.he<\/p>\n
grounds urged by the defendant in this appeal, the
\npoints that arise for consideration in this appeal a1fe,_~.<\/p>\n
i) Whether the Court below was j11st.ii:ie’.r5l
\nciecreeing the suit of the  :”\n<\/p>\n
directing the ciefendantto pa_y”_
\nRs.41,0s5.37 with  at * 4.5%’  ‘V T
\nfrom the date of suit.__   <\/p>\n
realisation?\n<\/p>\n
ii] What order?..V\n<\/p>\n
12) Heard the Connelelll\u00bb  \/ defendant<\/p>\n
and  -Plerused the impugned
\njudgment anda1so”thei__:’eVitienCe on record along with<\/p>\n
the :doeL1ment:s”1:iarkecl’ in the Court below. On re-<\/p>\n
lv”app3’eci’a’tion__of the pleadings and evidence on record.<\/p>\n
 Co=;l1:If1:vla:isx\u00a3>’ered the aforesaid point, which arose for<\/p>\n
Con’side_:’ai;ion in the affirmative, for the following<\/p>\n
it  V”r.easons:\u00bb\u00a7.\n<\/p>\n
 6533) The fact that the appellant\/defendant: is an<\/p>\n
  …e.mp.E0yee Working in the capacity of General Manager of<\/p>\n
M\/s. Raoio ltlcitise is not in dispute. It is also not in<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\ndispute that the said M \/ s. Radio House is the
\nCor1st.i.tuerit of the plaintiff for 3. long time and therefore,<\/p>\n
it had Kong standing business transaction wit}i=._the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. The appeilant herein, who was <\/p>\n
Genera} Manager of the said firm had  <\/p>\n
with the p1air1tiff for a tong  <\/p>\n
dispute that at the relevant ?.point4’0f:t:rI1e, <\/p>\n
had taken up construction  house._ai1d’V.1tii’\u00e9.;tVtime had
\nsubmitted an application  jiioasingviiloan to an
\nextent of Rs.i,5O,O0O\/V of his<\/p>\n
house. It is ;E3~’l;$_\u00a7iE’:_:V\\L’1’1()f;:i.1″}. =:disp1ite’thtat__.s\u00abince plaintiff was<\/p>\n
not having _fac:’iii*ty7’tosarirztiori housing loan. Therefore
\nthe co11ter_1tiovni;;5Iai.fi.tiff that. considering the iong<\/p>\n
StEl.’.1\u00a7t:’1i.VI1g busiriess reiationship plaintiff had with M\/ s.<\/p>\n
.Ra.d_io  Where the defendant was working as a<\/p>\n
“Gez1eraI’Mar1ager, his request for ioan was considered<\/p>\n
as .s};iec’ia1 ease and overdraft facility to the tune of<\/p>\n
  \u00a5{s;5nO,t}’OO\/~ was sanctioned to enable him to complete<\/p>\n
 Heonstruetion of his house and that the defendant<\/p>\n
“has utilised the same can not be ciisbeiieved.<\/p>\n
’10
\n14\u00bb) Further Cont;ehtioi1 of the defendant that.
\nthough he souglit for sanction of loan of Rs.l,50,000\/–,<\/p>\n
the same was not eanetioiied to him as the h(>Lisihg. loan<\/p>\n
facility was not available with the plaintiff arid <\/p>\n
overdraft. to an extent of Rs.60,C300\/~ was   <\/p>\n
28.07.1984 in the name of NH<\/p>\n
was working as 21 General Manager \u00e9hfid riot–3.r1*h1s ‘1if:iIifile._V<\/p>\n
therefore, he is not liable {ogre-pay tile   in V’<\/p>\n
his individual Capaeit\ufb01earillhotiljl:)e”=aCCe}\u00a7ted.”‘d Though<\/p>\n
dependent claims that’: Vvcorhi151′}liI:_11_i:atioris dated<\/p>\n
28.07.1984-EX’.’i?2:*  -2’f?7.e5,o11\u00a7;z8l5\u00ab1i;x.e3 were<\/p>\n
acidretgsed–to’l–‘i.im_:’iiot’ -individual capacity but, as
\nGeneral ‘Manager Radio House, therefore, the<\/p>\n
said} ovierdrafi.-‘facility was not sanctioned to him, the<\/p>\n
. eaid ;’oI1.t,eIitio:1 does not hold water in View of his reply<\/p>\n
   letter at EXP4 Writteii by the defendant in<\/p>\n
 hii3__iIivCi’i.\\riduei.i capacity’ to the Manager of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
“‘elez1i’ly discloses that the civerdraft of Rs.60.000\/– was<\/p>\n
 “V”ext.eh_ded to him in his individual eapacity and that he<\/p>\n
ixk\ufb01<\/p>\n
11<\/span>
\nhad utilised the same. In the said letter, he had also
\nrequested for an accommodation of three months to<\/p>\n
clear the said amount and further, he has also gi\\1\u00bb<e.na11<\/p>\n
'undertaking to remit Rs.4,351.28 within;"fe\u00a5;&=tj'~'..'_dayjs'nA<\/p>\n
towards the said loan amount.  .sa;id <\/p>\n
acknowledgement by letter dated: 10:.-Ot\ufb01fiv  <\/p>\n
EX.P4 clearly establishes th'a.t.__all  ulifgetl <\/p>\n
by the defendant in his written stVaten91'ent' and also in
\nhis evidence are nVothing'A._ baatvtlh  to deny<\/p>\n
repayment of loan ava.i.1\u00abed.by him. ' <\/p>\n
   Codi't"he1oW has rightly relied<\/p>\n
upon the  P4 and has decreed the suit<\/p>\n
in favour of""tljielp3ainvtiff1l Further the grounds urged by<\/p>\n
'JV"=th-g:._defe:nd'ant' hefeijhl in this appeal regarding variance<\/p>\n
  is also properly explained by PWs.l<\/p>\n
 who have given evidence in support of the case of<\/p>\n
 plai__nti'ff-Bank. On going through the same, it is<\/p>\n
'' –el'e.a1fl.y seen that there is no discrepancy In the oral or<\/p>\n
  _,,_docun1enta1"y evidence. In fact the defendan.t has made<\/p>\n
an attempt. to implicate M\/s. Radio House, in his place<\/p>\n
l2
\nas the borrower and to create COI1f1.lSiOI1 regarding his
\nliability to repay oL1tsta11d_ing loan due to plaintiff. In<\/p>\n
the light of the evidence of I-'3Ws.1 3: 2 an<_:1___ the<\/p>\n
documents produced by the plaintiff, the <\/p>\n
is right in contending that the defendant–~,i'ias..Aayaaile.d'a V'<\/p>\n
overdraft facility to the tune of }\u00a7'<\u00bbS';E}{1,00:()\/it  it<\/p>\n
to plaintiff to clear the outstanel:i\u00abrig'–.ai*i'ioiil':r1.t. <\/p>\n
said over draft, which  on 'V<\/p>\n
28.07. 1984.\n<\/p>\n
17) In any event; lithe  not made out<\/p>\n
any valid groiirid    V’ the weihreasoned<\/p>\n
judgIIiei1t_  by the Court below in
\ncleczreeirig tili\u00e9glijiaintiff-Bank for recovery of a<\/p>\n
sumjliovf i?_s.4l;’08.5V.OO&:with interest at 6% pa.<\/p>\n
l\u00e9)y Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant<\/p>\n
H islit”\u00a3iSIi1’ie\u00a73″_eg:ll’x;i?i’i.hout, any orcler as to Costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010 Author: S.N.Satyanarayana 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15’1″” DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYPEEA R.F.A. No. 679\/2001 (MON) BETWEEN: MRFAROUK YUSUFF, S \/ O LATE YUSUFF ABDULA. AGED ABOUT 60 […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFarouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 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\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-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=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-29T12:48:30+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-29T12:48:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1821,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-29T12:48:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 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":"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 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\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-29T12:48:30+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-29T12:48:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":1821,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010","name":"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-29T12:48:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farouk-yusuff-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Farouk Yusuff vs State Bank Of Mysore on 15 September, 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\/167127","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=167127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}