{"id":171904,"date":"2000-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000"},"modified":"2018-02-23T14:17:50","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T08:47:50","slug":"uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: R Babu<\/div>\n
Bench: S.R.Babu, J.Auguat, Shivaraj V. Patil<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUTTAM SINGH DUGAL & CO.LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNIED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.R.Babu, J.Auguat, Shivaraj V. Patil\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :\n<\/p>\n
      This  petition is filed against the judgment passed by
\nthe  High Court of Calcutta affirming a decree passed by the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge\tof  the\t High Court  for  a  sum  of
\nRs.1015.50  lakhs  on  application  of\tthe  respondent\t for
\njudgment  upon admission as provided under Order XII, Rule 6
\nof  the\t Code of Civil Procedure.  The facts leading to\t the
\nsuit are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      Transorient  Engineering\tCompany Ltd.   subcontracted
\nconstruction  of  students dormitories\/dining hall for\tthe
\nUniversity  of\tBaghdad,  Iraq.\t  Respondent Nos.   1  to  3
\nfunctioned  as\tconsortium  to\tfinance\t the  said  project.
\nCertain\t disputes  having  arisen   petitioner\tfiled  suits
\nagainst\t the  respondent  Banks that the debits\t raised\t are
\nillegal\t etc.\tIndian Overseas Bank (IOB) filed a suit\t for
\nrecovery  of  certain sums of money and an application\tmade
\ntherein\t under Chapter XIII-A of the Original Side Rules and
\nthe High Court of Calcutta rejected the same and Respondents
\n1  and\t3  Banks  and E.C.G.C.\twere also  impleaded  by  an
\namendment  in  the said suit.  Respondent No.1 filed a\tsuit
\nfor  recovery  of  certain sum of money with  certain  other
\nreliefs\t and  in  that suit, application for  judgment\tupon
\nadmission  was allowed.\t Appeal thereon being  unsuccessful,
\nthis petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n
      The  application\tfiled  by  Ist\trespondent-Bank\t for
\njudgment  on admission covers only a part of the suit claim.
\nThe Ist respondent-Bank relied upon (I) Balance Sheet of the
\npetitioner  for year ending 31st March, 1989 with  reference
\nto  Schedules C, D and E;  (ii) Minutes of the meeting
\nof  Board of Directors held on 30th May, 1990 which  noticed
\nthe  discussion\t at  the meeting and issues  that  could  be
\ndeemed to have been settled as result thereof.\t(iii) letter
\ndated  4th  June,  1990\t communicating\tthe  resolution\t and
\nminutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on May
\n30,  1990.  In the said minutes in the meeting held on\t30th
\nMay,  1990,  it was mentioned as follows:- IT WAS  RESOLVED
\nTHAT :\n<\/p>\n
      In   consideration  of  the   United  Bank  of  India,
\nConnaught  Circus  Branch, New Delhi, having agreed  to\t the
\ncontinuation  of the previously sanctioned aggregate  credit
\nlimits\tamounting to Rs.17.45 crores and in consideration of
\nthe  Bank  having  agreed to continue the operation  of\t the
\nvarious\t borrowing accounts with outstanding dues, as stated
\nhereinbelow  in detail, the Company agrees to duly execute a
\nfresh  set  of\tdocuments  as required\tby  the\t Bank  there
\nagainst.\n<\/p>\n
      That Mr.\tHarcharan Singh Dugal, the Managing Director
\nof  the\t Company be and is hereby authorised to execute\t the
\nsaid  documents\t and  the official seal of  the\t Company  be
\naffixed thereon.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  also  resolved that the Company  disputes\t the
\namount\tof Rs.3,08,01,000 debited to its Cash Credit Account
\non   01.08.89\twhich\talong\twith  interest\t stands\t  at
\nRs.3,60,62,579 as on 31.03.90.\n<\/p>\n
      That  the company accepts its liability as per details
\nstated hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
      Natures  Present Sanctioned Amount Due (Rs.  In lakhs)
\n(Rs.  In lakhs)<\/p>\n
      Cash  Limit\/OD  65.00 101.16 Inland  Guarantee  401.31
\n23.18  Baghdad\tGuarantee  1082.60 793.73  Jordan  Guarantee
\n209.30\t101.85\tTerm  Loan 5.00 Nil Loan Account  Nil  16.88\n<\/p>\n
——— ———- 1745.07 1036.80 ======= =======<\/p>\n
      That,  also due to fluctuations in Exchange Rate there
\nhas  been  difference in amount due under  Jordan  Guarantee
\namounting  to  about Rs.21 lakhs which is not  reflected  in
\ndetails shown above.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t copy  of the aforesaid resolution was sent  to\t the
\nplaintiff with the following note as indicated in the letter
\ndated 4th June, 1990:  a) We do not confirm the debit entry
\nof  Rs.3,60,62,579\/- representing your share of the  invoked
\nguarantee with interest upto 31.3.90 which has been effected
\nby  you\t unauthorisedly against the illegal payment made  by
\nthe  Indian  Overseas Bank.  We are enclosing a copy of\t the
\nreply  given  to the Legal Notice received by us from  them.
\nThe  reply is self-explanatory.\t You will agree that  before
\neffecting  the\tsaid  payment  consisting of  such  a  large
\namount, a reference ought to have been made to us.\n<\/p>\n
      b)  The  loan account of Janpath Branch  amounting  to
\nRs.4,03,820  is not accepted and is totally denied.  We have
\nrepaid\tyour  Janpath  Branch the Convertible was  loan\t for
\nBaghdad\t along\twith  interest in full.\t The debit  in\tyour
\nledger is on account of the Janpath Branch not giving effect
\nto the reduced interest rate as directed by the Reserve Bank
\nof  India.  At their request a copy of the RBI circular\t was
\ngiven to them and had also been sent to you.\n<\/p>\n
      c)  That\tfresh  documents are  executed\tagainst\t the
\nconsideration  of  permitting us to operate  the  sanctioned
\nlimits\tthere  against\tas they stand.\tThe debit  entry  of
\nRs.3,60,62,579 and entries for interest thereon will have no
\nbearing\t on the actual amount due as confirmed by us in\t our
\nBoard Resolution.\n<\/p>\n
      d)  Almost  two  years ago an  unofficial\t freeze\t was
\nimposed\t on  our Inland Guarantee limits for  reasons  never
\ncommunicated  to us.  Thus, you had denied fresh  Guarantees
\nfor  Bid  Bonds\t etc.\tto  tender for\tnew  works  and\t the
\ncompanys  huge fleet of Construction equipments and trained
\npersonnel  perforce thereby remained idle since the last one
\nand a half year.\n<\/p>\n
      The  petitioners\tfiled an affidavit-in-opposition  to
\ncontend\t that:\t1.  That the defendant No.1s suit is barred
\nby  limitation;\t  2.  That the resolution dated 30.5.90\t was
\npassed\tsubject\t to  a condition that the  inland  guarantee
\nlimit  would  be resumed and that as the condition  was\t not
\nfulfilled,  the\t resolution  was no binding;  3.   That\t the
\ndefendant  No.1s suit was liable to be stayed under Section
\n10  CPC\t because  the matter in issue in the suit  was\talso
\ndirectly  and  substantially in issue in the previous  suits
\nfiled  by others 4.  That the suit of the defendant No.1  is
\nbad for misjoinder of parties.\n<\/p>\n
      The  defendants  further\tcontended that,\t insofar  as
\nresolution  dated  30.5.90 and a letter dated  4.6.1990\t are
\nconcerned,  they are to the effect that they are matters  of
\nrecord\tand  save what are matters of record and  save\twhat
\nwould appear from the letter dated 30.5.1990 all allegations
\nto   the   contrary  are  disputed   and  denied.    It\t  is
\ncategorically\tdenied\tthat  there  is\t any  admission\t  of
\nliability  by the first respondent to the Petitioner to\t the
\nextent\tof  Rs.10,15,80,090  as on 30th March 1990  or\tthat
\nsince  the said alleged admission of the liability the claim
\nof  the\t Petitioner  has increased and it is now  more\tthan
\nRs.24 crores, as wrongly alleged, if at all.\n<\/p>\n
      At  the  time of hearing it appears it was  contended:\n<\/p>\n
1.   that  the\tamount\tclaimed by the\tplaintiff  from\t the
\ndefendants  was part of the consortium agreement under which
\nthe  Indian Overseas Bank, United Bank of India and the EXIM
\nBank  agreed  to  advance money to defendant No.  1  in\t the
\nproportion  of 50:25:25.  It was stated that Indian Overseas
\nBank has filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of
\nall  the amounts advanced by the consortium to the defendant
\nNo.1  and that suit was still pending, therefore, they\twere
\nestopped  from\tfiling that suit and making  an\t independent
\nclaim  against\tthe  defendant No.1.  2.  That in  the\tsuit
\nfiled  by Indian Overseas Bank an application had been moved
\nby the Indian Overseas Bank for final judgment under Chapter
\nXIII-A\ton the basis of the same documents which were sought
\nto  be\trelied upon by the plaintiff.  The trial  judge\t had
\nrejected  the  same.   3.   That   payments  had  been\tmade
\nsubsequent  to\tthe admission and loan was recalled only  in
\n1993 just prior to the filing of the suit.  4.\tThat several
\nclaims\thave  been included in the suit in respect of  which
\nanother\t suit  has been filed in the Madras High Court\tand,
\ntherefore, the amount could not be recovered.  5.  The claim
\nof  the\t plaintiff had been covered by a  counter  guarantee
\nissued\tby  the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation and\t the
\nextent\tof payment made by it to the plaintiff and the\tsuit
\nwas  for  the  reason not maintainable at  the\tinstance  of
\ndefendant  No.\t1.  6.\tThat the defendants in the suit\t had
\nfiled  a  separate suit in which he had claimed for  certain
\nreliefs\t which would nullify the claim made by the plaintiff
\nin the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned  trial  judge  found\t that  there  is  an
\nunequivocal  admission of the contents of the documents\t and
\nwhat  is denied is the extent of admission and the  increase
\nof the liability admitted.  The learned trial judge took the
\nview  that  the pre-requisites of Order XII, rule 6 CPC\t had
\nbeen  satisfied in this case and that on a plain reading  of
\nthe  resolution of the Board dated 30.5.90 there could be no
\ndoubt  that the Petitioner had made a clear, unambiguous and
\nunconditional  acknowledgement of its liability to the Bank.
\nThe language of the resolution would show that the extent of
\nthe admission in the resolution is for Rs.10,15,80,000\/-, if
\nnot  for Rs.10,36.80 lakhs.  The figure of Rs.1015.80  lakhs
\nis  firm  admission  being  the\t  figure  arrived  at  after
\ndeducting Rs.21 lakhs claimed by the defendants by reason of
\nfluctuation  of\t the exchange rate and that was\t the  amount
\nclaimed\t by the Petitioner in the suit.\t This admission made
\nin  the course of the Board of Directors resolution had not
\nbeen\texplained    by\t    the\t     Petitioner\t   in\t the
\naffidavit-in-opposition but on the other hand had reiterated
\nthe  same.  The arguments raised before the trial court were
\nconsidered  to\tbe contrary to the pleadings raised  in\t the
\ncase.  Therefore, the application was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      On appeal, the Division Bench noticed these very facts
\nand  also  noted  that\tdiscrepancy,  if  any,\tbetween\t the
\nappellants  particulars\t and the particulars in respect\t of
\nwhich  a  judgment was sought on admission was not made\t the
\nsubject-matter\tof  challenge  either in  the  affidavit-in-
\nopposition  before  the\t trial\tJudge or  in  the  arguments
\nthereof\t and characterized the same as a point of accounting
\ndiscrepancy which could not be raised at the stage of appeal
\nand dismissed the same.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Order
\nXII  Rule  6  comes  under the heading\tadmissions  and\t a
\njudgment  on  admission\t could\tbe   given  only  after\t due
\nopportunity  to the other side to explain the admission,  if
\nany,  made;  that such admission should have been made\tonly
\nin  the course of the pleadings or else the other side\twill
\nnot  have  an opportunity to explain such  admission;\tthat
\neven  though, the provision reads that the court may at\t any
\nstage of the suit make such order as it thinks fit effect of
\nadmission,  if\tany, can be considered only at the  time  of
\ntrial;\tthat the admission even in pleadings will have to be
\nread  along with order VIII Rule 5(1) of CPC and Court\tneed
\nnot  necessarily  proceed to pass an order or a judgment  on
\nthe  basis of such admission but call upon the party relying
\nupon  such admission to prove its case independently;\tthat
\nduring pendency of other suits and the nature of contentions
\nraised\tin  the case, it would not be permissible at all  to
\ngrant  the  relief  before  trial as has been  done  in\t the
\npresent\t case;\tthat the expression admissions made in the
\ncourse\tof  the pleadings or otherwise will have to be\tread
\ntogether  and  the  expression otherwise will have  to\tbe
\ninterpreted ejusdem generis.\n<\/p>\n
      As  to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, we need not
\nsay  anything more than what the legislature itself has said
\nwhen  the said provision came to be amended.  In the objects
\nand  reasons  set  out while amending the said rule,  it  is
\nstated\tthat  where  a\tclaim is admitted,  the\t court\thas
\njurisdiction  to  enter a judgment for the plaintiff and  to
\npass  a decree on admitted claim.  The object of the Rule is
\nto  enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to
\nthe extent of the relief to which according to the admission
\nof  the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. We should not
\nunduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is
\nto  enable  a party to obtain speedy judgment.\tWhere  other
\nparty  has  made a plain admission entitling the  former  to
\nsucceed,  it should apply and also wherever there is a clear
\nadmission  of  facts in the face of which, it is  impossible
\nfor the party making such admission to succeed.\n<\/p>\n
      The  next contention convassed is that the resolutions
\nor  minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors, resolution
\npassed thereon and the letter sending the said resolution to
\nthe  respondent\t bank  cannot amount to a pleading  or\tcome
\nwithin the scope of the Rule as such statements are not made
\nin  the\t course\t of  the pleadings  or\totherwise.   When  a
\nstatement  is made to a party and such statement is  brought
\nbefore\tthe  Court  showing  admission of  liability  by  an
\napplication  filed under Order XII Rule 6 and the other side
\nhas sufficient opportunity to explain the said admission and
\nif  such explanation is not accepted by the Court, we do not
\nthink  the  trial  court is helpless in refusing to  pass  a
\ndecree.\t  We have adverted to the basis of the claim and the
\nmanner\tin  which the trial court has dealt with  the  same.
\nWhen  the trial judge states that the statement made in\t the
\nproceedings of the Board of Directors meeting and the letter
\nsent  as well as the pleadings when read together, leads  to
\nunambiguous  and  clear\t admission with only the  extent  to
\nwhich  the  admission is made is in dispute.  And the  court
\nhad  a duty to decide the same and grant a decree.  We think
\nthis approach is unexceptionable.\n<\/p>\n
      Before  the  trial judge, there was no  pleading\tmuch
\nless  an  explanation as to the circumstances in  which\t the
\nsaid  admission\t was  made,  so as to take  it\tout  of\t the
\ncategory  of  admissions which created a liability.  On\t the
\nother  hand, what is stated in the course of the  pleadings,
\nin  answer  to the application filed under Order XII Rule  6
\nCPC,  the stand is clearly to the contrary.  Statements\t had
\nbeen  made  in\tthe course of the Minutes of  the  Board  of
\nDirectors  held\t on 30th May, 1990 to which we have  already
\nadverted  to in detail.\t In the pleadings raised before\t the
\nCourt,\tthere is a clear statement made by the respondent as
\nto the undisputed part of the claim made by them.  In regard
\nto  this  aspect of communicating the resolution dated\t30th
\nMay,  1990 in the letter dated 4th June, 1990 what is stated
\nin the affidavit-in-oppostion in application under Order XII
\nRule 6 CPC is save, what are matters on record and save what
\nwould  appear  from  the  letter dated 30th  May,  1990\t all
\nallegations  to the contrary are disputed and denied.\tThis
\naverment  would\t clearly mean that the petitioner  does\t not
\ndeny  a word of what was recorded therein and what is denied
\nis  the\t allegation to the contrary.  The denial is  evasive
\nand the learned judge is perfectly justified in holding that
\nthere  is  an unequivocal admission of the contents  of\t the
\ndocuments  and what is denied is extent of the admission but
\nthe increase in the liability is admitted.\n<\/p>\n
      Even  without referring to the expression\t otherwise
\nin  Rule 6 of Order XII CPC, we can draw an inference in the
\npresent\t case  on the basis of the pleadings raised  in\t the
\ncase  in  the shape of the applications under that Rule\t and
\nthe  answering\taffidavit  which   clearly  reiterates\t the
\nadmission.   If that is so, interpretation of the expression
\notherwise becomes unnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned  counsel  for the appellant relied  on  a
\ndecision  of  this  Court  in Nagubai  Ammal  &\t Others\t Vs.
\nB.Shama\t Rao  &\t Others,  1956\tS.C.R.451,  as\tto  when  an
\nadmission  becomes relevant.  In Nagubai Ammal (supra) which
\nis locus classicus on the subject states that merely because
\na  written  admission  made  in a  different  context,\tsuch
\nadmission may not become relevant if the party making it has
\na  reasonable  explanation  of that.  But that\tis  not\t the
\nposition  in  the present case at all.\tLearned counsel\t for
\nthe  appellant\tfurther adverted to the decision  in  Balraj
\nTaneja\t& Anr.\tVs.  Sunil Madan and Anr., 1999 (8) SCC\t 396
\nin  which the court was concerned with a case of the  effect
\nof not filing a written statement and whether a decree could
\nbe  passed only on that basis.\tThat was a suit for specific
\nperformance  and it was held it could not be granted without
\neven  writing  a detailed judgment and adverted\t to  various
\nprovisions of Code of Civil Procedure and reference was made
\nto  Order  XII Rule 6 by way of analogy and referred to\t the
\ndictum\tin  Razia Begum V.  Sahebzadi Anwar Begum,<\/a> 1959\t SCR
\n111,  to  state that Order XII Rule 6 should be\t read  along
\nwith  proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8 CPC.\t In that case,\twhat
\nwas  noticed  was that in cases governed by Section  42\t and
\nSection\t 43  of Specific Relief Act, 1877, the court is\t not
\nbound  to grant declaration prayed for on the mere admission
\nof  the\t claim by the defendant if the court has  reason  to
\ninsist\tupon a clear proof apart from admission.  The result
\nof  a  declaratory  decree confers status not  only  on\t the
\nparties\t but  for  generations to come and so it  cannot  be
\ngranted\t on  a rule of admissions and,\ttherefore,  insisted
\nupon  adducing evidence independent of the admission.\tThat
\nis  not the position in the present case at all.  We fail to
\nsee  how this decision can be of any use to the\t petitioner.
\nThe  decision in re Pandam Tea Co.  Ltd., AIR 1974  Calcutta
\n170 pertains to the manner in which the balance sheet should
\nbe  read  and has no bearing on the case.  The\tdecision  in
\nShikharchand  &\t Ors.\tvs.   Mst.  Bari Bai  &\t Ors.,\t1974
\nM.P.75,\t is  to the effect that the Rule is wide  enough  to
\nafford\trelief not only in cases of admissions in  pleadings
\nbut  also in the case of admission de hors pleadings.  State
\nBank  of India vs.  M\/s Midland Industries & Ors., AIR\t1988
\nDelhi  153,  and Union of India vs.  M\/s Feroze &  Co.,\t AIR
\n1962 J & K 66 cannot have any relevance because the facts in
\narising cases and the present case are entirely different.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned  counsel\tfor  the Petitioner  contended\tthat
\nadmissions referred to in Order XII, Rule 6 CPC should be of
\nthe  same  nature as other admissions referred to  in  other
\nrule preceding this Rule.  Admissions generally arise when a
\nstatement  is  made by a party in any of the modes  provided
\nunder  Sections\t 18  to\t 23  of\t the  Evidence\tAct,   1872.
\nAdmissions  are\t of many kinds :  they may be considered  as
\nbeing  on  the\trecord as actual if that is  either  in\t the
\npleadings  or  in answer to interrogatories or implied\tfrom
\nthe pleadings by non-traversal.\t Secondly as between parties
\nby  agreement  or  notice.  Since we  have  considered\tthat
\nadmission  for\tpassing the judgment is based  on  pleadings
\nitself\tit  is\tunnecessary to examine as to what  kinds  of
\nadmissions are covered by Order XII, Rule 6 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
      We  are  not  impressed  with the\t contention  of\t the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant that there is no admission
\nfor  the  purpose of Order XII Rule 6 at all, nor  that\t the
\nadmission  if any is conditional because we cannot spell out
\nany   conditions  stated  therein   nor\t the  dismissal\t  of
\napplication  filed  by Indian Overseas Bank in the suit\t has
\nany relevance.\tTherefore, we are of the view that this case
\ndeserves  to be dismissed with advocates fees quantified at
\nRs.  10,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000 Author: R Babu Bench: S.R.Babu, J.Auguat, Shivaraj V. Patil PETITIONER: UTTAM SINGH DUGAL & CO.LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNIED BANK OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/08\/2000 BENCH: S.R.Babu, J.Auguat, Shivaraj V. Patil JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA […]<\/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-171904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000 - 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\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-23T08:47:50+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T08:47:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3216,\"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\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T08:47:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000 - 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\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-23T08:47:50+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T08:47:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000"},"wordCount":3216,"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\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000","name":"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T08:47:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttam-singh-dugal-co-ltd-vs-unied-bank-of-india-ors-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000"}]},{"@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\/171904","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=171904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}