{"id":181597,"date":"2011-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-21T14:27:47","modified_gmt":"2018-05-21T08:57:47","slug":"ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011<\/div>\n
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                                          CWJC No.265 of 2011\n                                                -----------\n<\/pre>\n
                    M\/s Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles a proprietorship firm situated at N.H.-19,
\n                    Gandhi Setu Path, Hajipur through its Proprietor Amod Kumar, son of
\n                    Sriu Ram Kailash Singh, resident of village Bagmusa, P.S. Hajipur,
\n                    District Vaishali
\n                                                                    ……. Petitioner
\n                                         Versus\n<\/p>\n
                    1. The Union Bank of India, Head Office Union Bank Bhawan, 239,
\n                        Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Mumbai-400021 through its Chairman-cum-
\n                        Managing Director.\n<\/p>\n
                    2. The Assistant General Manager, Nodal Regional Office, Union
\n                        Bank of India, Nasheman, Majharul Haque Path, Patna\n<\/p>\n
                    3. The Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India,
\n                        Regional Office, Nasheman, Majharul Haque Path, Patna\n<\/p>\n
                    4. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Hajipur Branch,
\n                        District Vaishali.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       …… Respondents\n<\/p>\n
                                              ———<\/p>\n
\n                    For the Petitioner :            Mr Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate\n                    For Respondents :               M\/s Aditya Sharan and\n                                                        Hemant Kumar Sharan, Advocates.\n                                              --------\n\n15\/   25 .03.3011                  This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which\n\n<\/pre>\n
                     is a proprietorship firm established in the year 2001 for running a<\/p>\n
                     service centre of motor vehicles (Car) at Hajipur duly authorized by<\/p>\n
                     M\/s Maruti Udyog Limited. Respondents are the Union Bank of<\/p>\n
                     India (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank’ for the sake of brevity)<\/p>\n
                     having its Head Office at Mumbai and Regional Office at Patna and<\/p>\n
                     its authorities.\n<\/p>\n
                                   2. Reliefs sought by the petitioner are for directing the<\/p>\n
                     respondents to release the balance amount of term loan sanctioned<\/p>\n
                     by the Bank as far back as in the year 2004 and to assist petitioner-<\/p>\n
                     Unit   with adequate capital in order to commence its industrial<\/p>\n
                     activities and for quashing the entire proceeding under the<\/p>\n
                     Securitisation and      Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
\n                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) initiated by the Bank for<\/p>\n
recovery of the part of sanctioned loan, which was paid to<\/p>\n
petitioner-Unit, including notices dated 23.08.2010 and 23.11.2010<\/p>\n
(Annexures 10 and 13) issued under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the<\/p>\n
Act by the Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer of the Bank<\/p>\n
(respondentno.3) and further to allow petitioner-Unit to reorganize<\/p>\n
and remanage its entire infrastructure and catch            the industrial<\/p>\n
activities at the earliest as well as for other ancillary reliefs.<\/p>\n
              3. The claim of the petitioner is that petitioner-Unit<\/p>\n
had a term loan and cash credit account initially opened in State<\/p>\n
Bank of India, Hajipur and it functioned well during 2001-2004, but<\/p>\n
subsequently in the year 2004 the authorities of respondent-Bank,<\/p>\n
namely, Union Bank of India approached the petitioner and<\/p>\n
persuaded its proprietor to shift the entire banking from State Bank<\/p>\n
of India to respondent-Union Bank of India, Hajipur Branch,<\/p>\n
Vaishali and offered every assistance and co-operation at every<\/p>\n
required stages. Accordingly, the petitioner shifted its entire banking<\/p>\n
to respondent-Bank, which recommended for sanction of Rs. 18 lacs<\/p>\n
by way of term loan and Rs. 10 lacs by way of Cash Credit Limit in<\/p>\n
favour of petitioner-Unit vide letter dated 29.03.2004 (Annexure 2).<\/p>\n
Furthermore,     respondent-Bank       also   sent    two    cheques   of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,84,308.00 and Rs.1,66,232.00 in favour of State Bank of India,<\/p>\n
Hajipur along with letter dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure 3) for the<\/p>\n
purpose of taking over the existing loan account of petitioner-Unit.
\n                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
            4. It is further claimed that inspite of repeated<\/p>\n
persuasion of the petitioner, respondent-Bank disbursed only Rs.9<\/p>\n
lacs between the period 31.03.2004 to 30.06.2004 of the term loan<\/p>\n
account, but failed to disburse the entire amount of sanctioned term<\/p>\n
loan. Inspite of repeated reminders, respondent-Bank maintained<\/p>\n
silence over the issue of release of balance amount of the sanctioned<\/p>\n
term loan, due to which the petitioner could not make payments to<\/p>\n
the supplier Company and hence Paint Booth System could not be<\/p>\n
established. The supplier, namely, M\/s Neptune Equipment Private<\/p>\n
Limited, Ahmedabad pursued the Bank also but when respondent-<\/p>\n
Bank did not respond, the supplier cancelled the supply of the<\/p>\n
system causing huge loss to the petitioner due to the said inaction of<\/p>\n
the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
            5. However, despite non-cooperation and conservative<\/p>\n
approach of respondent-Bank, the petitioner claimed that it<\/p>\n
somehow managed to pay about Rs.3,64,500.00 between the years<\/p>\n
2007 and 2009 towards outstanding dues. It is also stated that inspite<\/p>\n
of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, notice dated 23.08.2010<\/p>\n
(Annexure 10) under section 13(2) of the Act was issued by the<\/p>\n
authorities of respondent-Bank and in reply to the said notice the<\/p>\n
petitioner sent letter dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure 11) persuading it<\/p>\n
to release further finance for revival of the industrial unit.<\/p>\n
Respondent-Bank vide letter dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure 12)<\/p>\n
denied the petitioner’s claim and directed it to discharge the loan<\/p>\n
liabilities and within two weeks thereafter sent notice dated
\n                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
23.11.2010 (Annexure 13) under section 13(4) of the Act against the<\/p>\n
assets mortgaged by the petitioner towards the collateral security.<\/p>\n
                6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted<\/p>\n
that petitioner-Unit is well-equipped and potentially viable in all<\/p>\n
respects, but     it is unable to complete its infrastructure, which<\/p>\n
remained incomplete due to non-disbursement of the balance<\/p>\n
amount of sanctioned term loan without any rhyme and reason by<\/p>\n
respondent-Bank. It is also stated that withholding of the sanctioned<\/p>\n
term loan by respondent-Bank without any reasonable cause is not<\/p>\n
only    unlawful     and    unreasonable     but      also   amounts   to<\/p>\n
misrepresentation and subsequent non-cooperation, which is the sole<\/p>\n
cause of the unexpected and undesired loss and damage to<\/p>\n
petitioner-Unit, which is totally dependent upon respondent-Bank on<\/p>\n
the point of financial assistance. Hence, he submitted that the entire<\/p>\n
proceeding under section 13 of the Act including the orders under<\/p>\n
challenge are against the spirit of the Act itself.<\/p>\n
             7. He further argued that the land in question is a big<\/p>\n
agricultural plot and in a small portion thereof, there may be a room<\/p>\n
or two for the purpose of agriculture, cultivation and irrigation, but<\/p>\n
the entire plot is agricultural in nature, which is fully proved by an<\/p>\n
album of photographs, which was produced by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner at the time of hearing of this case, and also by the list<\/p>\n
given in Annexure 10 of the writ petition as well as the registered<\/p>\n
deeds of transfer (Annexure 1 series of I.A. No. 942 of 2011) in<\/p>\n
favour of the petitioner. Hence he submitted that the fact that the
\n                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
land in question is agricultural in nature is not a disputed one and<\/p>\n
the respondents are merely trying to raise dispute for the purpose of<\/p>\n
this case and, accordingly, provisions of the Act shall not apply to<\/p>\n
any security interest created in the agricultural land as per section<\/p>\n
31(i) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
             8. It was also claimed by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that Reserve Bank of India prescribed Guidelines for such<\/p>\n
matters and a Revised Guideline for Rehabilitation of Sick S.S.I.<\/p>\n
Units was prepared (Annexure 15) providing that it is of utmost<\/p>\n
importance to take measures to ensure that sickness is arrested at the<\/p>\n
incipient stage itself and the Bank should make full enquiry into the<\/p>\n
financial health of the unit, its operations etc. and take remedial<\/p>\n
action and should also be under obligation to provide timely<\/p>\n
financial assistance depending on established need of the unit. He<\/p>\n
also claimed that Reserve Bank of India’s Guidelines have statutory<\/p>\n
force and are mandatory for all the Banks, but in the instant case,<\/p>\n
respondent-Bank has clearly violated the said guidelines and for that<\/p>\n
reason only the petitioner is suffering.\n<\/p>\n
             9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other<\/p>\n
hand, claimed that cash credit account was given to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
which availed the same. It was further claimed that the term loan for<\/p>\n
the same purpose was not to be given directly, rather mode of<\/p>\n
disbursement was provided in letter dated 20.03.2004 (Annexure<\/p>\n
`G’) given under the head `Assessment of Term Loan’, but the<\/p>\n
petitioner did not follow the said terms and was put to loss due to its
\n                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
own act. Learned counsel for the respondents further claimed that<\/p>\n
M\/s Neptune Equipment Private Limited, Ahmedabad sent letter<\/p>\n
dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure E) to the petitioner refusing to supply<\/p>\n
and refunded the cheques, whereafter respondent-Bank also sent a<\/p>\n
consequential letter to the petitioner on 23.08.2005 (Annexure F),<\/p>\n
but inspite of receiving all informations in the year 2005 itself, the<\/p>\n
petitioner did not take any appropriate step in that regard and only<\/p>\n
after six years, the instant writ petition has been filed in the year<\/p>\n
2011.\n<\/p>\n
            10. He further averred that where ever there is any<\/p>\n
procedural error, it can be legally considered in an appeal under<\/p>\n
section 17 of the Act, which is prescribed against any step taken<\/p>\n
under section 13(4) of the Act. He further submitted that it is<\/p>\n
apparent that the petitioner had managed for six years without<\/p>\n
receiving the remaining amount of term loan and it never reported of<\/p>\n
any sickness or erosion of entire capital and hence there was no<\/p>\n
question of revival of     petitioner-Unit. Hence he claimed that<\/p>\n
initiation of the proceeding under section 13 of the Act was quite<\/p>\n
legal and justified and if any error has been committed by the<\/p>\n
authorities in the said proceeding, the petitioner has an adequate and<\/p>\n
efficacious remedy of appeal for redressal of its grievance.<\/p>\n
            11. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that<\/p>\n
the land in question is situated in Hajipur town surrounded by<\/p>\n
buildings near National Highway and hence it cannot be agricultural<\/p>\n
land. He also averred that merely that mere deeds of transfer cannot
\n                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
show as to whether any land is agricultural in nature rather the fact<\/p>\n
of tilling it every year has to be proved for the said purpose. It was<\/p>\n
also stated that neither in the affidavit of the petitioner (Annexure I)<\/p>\n
nor in the opinion of the Lawyer dated 29.04.2004 (Annexure H)<\/p>\n
supplied at the time of argument it is mentioned that the land in<\/p>\n
question was agricultural in nature. It is also claimed that there are<\/p>\n
bamboo clumps and banana trees on the land in question and hence<\/p>\n
at worst it would come under the definition of horticulture and not<\/p>\n
under the definition of agriculture as defined by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax Andhra Pradesh vs. Officer-in-<\/p>\n
charge (Court of Wards), Paigah, reported in A.I.R. 1977 Supreme<\/p>\n
Court 113. Hence, he states that the said question is clearly disputed<\/p>\n
question of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court.<\/p>\n
             12. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that<\/p>\n
after issuance of notice under section 13(2) of the Act dated<\/p>\n
23.08.2010, no objection under section 13(3-A) of the Act was filed<\/p>\n
by the petitioner and merely a frivolous notice was sent by the<\/p>\n
petitioner after 60 days on 30.10.2010 (Annexure 11), which was<\/p>\n
rejected by the authorities of the Bank on 09.11.2010 (Annexure<\/p>\n
12), but no step was taken by the petitioner thereafter in the said<\/p>\n
matter. Hence, he submitted that all these objections raised by the<\/p>\n
petitioner are baseless, frivolous and misconceived.<\/p>\n
             13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
this case and the arguments raised       by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties, it transpires that the land in question contains constructions
\n                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
and in the remaining land there are bamboo clumps and banana<\/p>\n
trees,     which      is       apparent from the photographs and other<\/p>\n
documents. It is true that in the deed of transfer in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner the land in question is recorded as agricultural land but<\/p>\n
that document is the document of the petitioner and it does not<\/p>\n
show that the land is still used for agricultural purposes.<\/p>\n
               14. A land can be said to be agricultural land only when<\/p>\n
it is either actually used or ordinarily used or made to be used for<\/p>\n
agricultural       purposes       and must have a connection with an<\/p>\n
agricultural user or purpose. In the instant case what was really<\/p>\n
required    to be shown was the connection of the land in question<\/p>\n
with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility<\/p>\n
of user of land by some one for an agricultural purpose. It          is<\/p>\n
not mere potentiality but the actual condition and user of the land,<\/p>\n
which can legally show as to whether it is agricultural land. Here in<\/p>\n
the instant case, it is not established by the materials on record that<\/p>\n
the land in question is still in any way connected with an<\/p>\n
agricultural purpose and user and hence this is a disputed question of<\/p>\n
fact, which cannot be decided by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               15. So far the Reserve Bank of India’s Guidelines<\/p>\n
for Rehabilitation of Sick S.S.I. Units are concerned, they provide<\/p>\n
that the measures have to be taken to ensure that sickness is<\/p>\n
arrested at the      incipient stage itself. Here in the instant case,<\/p>\n
the loan was sanctioned            in   March, 2004   and   in the same
\n                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
month     mode       of disbursement was also provided                under the<\/p>\n
head `Assessment of Term Loan’ and the claim of respondent-<\/p>\n
Bank is that the petitioner did not follow the said terms and was put<\/p>\n
to loss due to its own acts. Hence this question is also a disputed<\/p>\n
question of fact in view of the petitioner’s claim that respondent-<\/p>\n
Bank did not follow the Guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of<\/p>\n
India, which have statutory force.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                16. It is also apparent from the respective claims of the<\/p>\n
parties   that     the loan was sanctioned in                    March,     2004,<\/p>\n
whereafter     M\/s     Neptune Equipments Private                Limited     was<\/p>\n
appointed as supplier but            the said supplier returned cheques and<\/p>\n
refused   to     supply       the    required   article    vide letter      dated<\/p>\n
01.07.2005,      whereafter         respondent-Bank       also       sent       a<\/p>\n
consequential        letter    to    the   petitioner      on 23.08.2005. All<\/p>\n
these developments took place in the year 2005, but no step was<\/p>\n
taken by the petitioner against respondent-Bank for taking steps<\/p>\n
as      per Reserve Bank            of India’s Guidelines and only when<\/p>\n
possession notice dated 23.11.2010 under section 13(4) of the<\/p>\n
Act was sent to the petitioner, the instant writ petition was filed on<\/p>\n
05.01.2011.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               17. The materials on record clearly show that the<\/p>\n
demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the<\/p>\n
petitioner on 23.08.2010 but no objection under section 13(3-A) of<\/p>\n
the Act was ever filed by the petitioner before the authority
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
       concerned although it was incumbent upon the petitioner to file<\/p>\n
       objections under the said provision stating the entire facts and<\/p>\n
       raising all its    claims. Sending      merely a Lawyer’s notice to<\/p>\n
       respondent-Bank on 30.10.2010 (Annexure 11) and that too beyond<\/p>\n
       the period of sixty days, cannot be legally considered to be an<\/p>\n
       objection under any           provision of law, more so when the said<\/p>\n
       Lawyer’s notice was merely to release further finance for revival<\/p>\n
       of the industrial unit, which was duly replied by respondent-<\/p>\n
       Bank vide letter dated 09.11.2010         denying    the   claim of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner and directing it to discharge its loan liabilities but when the<\/p>\n
       petitioner failed to comply, the impugned possession notice<\/p>\n
       under section 13(4) of           the Act was sent by respondent-<\/p>\n
       Bank on 23.11.2010 (Annexure 13).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court<\/p>\n
       does not find any reason to interfere with the steps taken by the<\/p>\n
       respondents under the provision of section 13 of the Act, specially<\/p>\n
       when the petitioner has got an adequate and efficacious remedy<\/p>\n
       available in terms of section 17 of the Act and, accordingly, this writ<\/p>\n
       petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
MPS\/                             ( S. N. Hussain, J. )\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.265 of 2011 ———– M\/s Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles a proprietorship firm situated at N.H.-19, Gandhi Setu Path, Hajipur through its Proprietor Amod Kumar, son of […]<\/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":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011 - 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\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-21T08:57:47+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\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T08:57:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2425,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T08:57:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011 - 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\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-21T08:57:47+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\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T08:57:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011"},"wordCount":2425,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011","name":"M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T08:57:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hi-tech-auto-mobiles-vs-the-union-bank-of-india-amp-ors-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Hi-Tech Auto Mobiles vs The Union Bank Of India &Amp; Ors on 25 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/181597","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=181597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}