{"id":183545,"date":"2009-06-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-30T04:47:34","modified_gmt":"2016-07-29T23:17:34","slug":"p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 537 of 1995()\n\n\n\n1. P.S.ARUCHAMI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. CANARA BANK\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS,T.M.SUNIL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN,A.V.THOMAS,\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :02\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                  = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                      A.S.No.537 of 1995\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n             Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The defendant in O.S.No.339 of 1992 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Palakkad is the appellant in this appeal. The said<\/p>\n
suit was one for realisation of a sum of Rs.68,260\/-.<\/p>\n
     2.  The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to an application for agricultural short term<\/p>\n
loan for Rs.44,100\/- submitted to the plaintiff-bank by the<\/p>\n
defendant for the purpose of digging well, construction of<\/p>\n
pump shed and for purchase of pumpset and motor and other<\/p>\n
accessories for his agricultural operations in the agricultural<\/p>\n
lands belonging to the defendant situated at Pudussery village<\/p>\n
in Palakkad Taluk, the plaintiff sanctioned the said loan as per<\/p>\n
Loan No. ALFD 2\/87.       To secure repayment of the above<\/p>\n
amounts covered under the above loan, the defendant had<\/p>\n
on 6.3.1987 executed a Demand Promissory Note for<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.44,100\/- in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the<\/p>\n
loan with interest at 10% per annum with compounded<\/p>\n
quarterly rests. The defendant had also executed Ext.A2 take<\/p>\n
delivery letter dated 6.3.1987 in favour of the plaintiff-bank<\/p>\n
accepting the terms and conditions contained therein and also<\/p>\n
agreeing to repay the loan in 8 yearly instalments together<\/p>\n
with interest as and when due. The defendant had further<\/p>\n
executed Ext.A3 Memorandum of Agreement in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff accepting the terms and conditions contained therein<\/p>\n
and hypothecating the crops raised or to be raised from time<\/p>\n
to time over the properties described thereunder. As per the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions of the loan as agreed to by the<\/p>\n
defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire dues in<\/p>\n
lump in case of default in the matter of re-payment. By way of<\/p>\n
further security for the loan, the defendant had on 13.2.87<\/p>\n
deposited the title deeds described in the plaint A Schedule<\/p>\n
relating to his immovable properties in Schedule B with the<\/p>\n
plaintiff-bank in its Sultanpet Branch, Palakkad Taluk with<\/p>\n
intent to create a mortgage thereon in favour of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
for the purpose of securing repayment of money due from the<\/p>\n
defendant     to the   plaintiff-bank.   The   defendant,    on<\/p>\n
14.02.1987, executed a letter evidencing deposit of the said<\/p>\n
title deeds along with two lists showing the list of title deeds<\/p>\n
deposited and the description of the immovable properties<\/p>\n
mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. Thereby the defendant<\/p>\n
had created a charge over the Plaint B Schedule immovable<\/p>\n
properties. The defendant has defaulted the payment of the<\/p>\n
instalments due to the plaintiff and has thereby violated the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions of Ext.A3 Memorandum of Agreement .<\/p>\n
As per Ext.A4 Acknowledgment of Debt and Security dated<\/p>\n
20.11.89, the defendant executed a letter acknowledging the<\/p>\n
debt and security in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid loan.   As per Ext.A5 account maintained by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in respect of the above transaction the total amount<\/p>\n
outstanding     as on 28.03.1992 was Rs.65,125.20.          The<\/p>\n
defendant is liable to pay subsequent interest at the revised<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.16.5% per annum from 28.3.1992.          In spite of<\/p>\n
several demands both in person and by registered letters<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
made by the plaintiff , the defendant did not settle the<\/p>\n
accounts. Hence the suit. The defendant had been given<\/p>\n
relief to the extent of Rs.10,000\/- under the Agricultural Rural<\/p>\n
and Debt Relief Scheme 1990 (ARDR Scheme for short) and<\/p>\n
the amount claimed in the suit is after giving credit to all the<\/p>\n
amounts remitted by the defendant including the relief given<\/p>\n
under the ARDR Scheme.         The plaintiff is also entitled to<\/p>\n
future interest also at the revised rate of Rs.16.5% per<\/p>\n
annum. The plaintiff is also entitled to a charged decree by<\/p>\n
sale of Plaint B Schedule mortgaged properties in favour of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff.   The cause of action for the suit arose on<\/p>\n
13.2.1987 when the defendant deposited the title deeds with<\/p>\n
the Sultanpet Branch of the plaintiff-bank and on 14.2.1987<\/p>\n
when the defendant executed a letter evidencing deposit of<\/p>\n
the said title deeds and on 16.3.1987 when the defendant<\/p>\n
executed the Demand Promissory Note, take delivery letter<\/p>\n
and Memorandum of Agreement in favour of the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
on 20.11.1989, when the defendant executed the letter of<\/p>\n
acknowledgment of debt and security in favour of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
Hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he<\/p>\n
admitted the loan advanced with the stipulation to pay<\/p>\n
interest at the rate of 10 % per annum. His case was that<\/p>\n
since the loan was to be repaid in yearly instalments<\/p>\n
extending up to 8 years, the suit filed in the year 1992 was<\/p>\n
pre-mature.    He also disputed the interest rate of 16.5%<\/p>\n
claimed.    He contended that the deduction of Rs.5,606\/-<\/p>\n
towards the excess amount under the ARDR Scheme was not<\/p>\n
correct and that the suit filed before the expiry of the period<\/p>\n
of loan was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The court below framed two issues for trial. No oral<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. Exts. A1 to A5 on the<\/p>\n
side of the plaintiff and Ext.B1 to B4 on the side of the<\/p>\n
defendant were marked on consent. The learned Sub Judge,<\/p>\n
as per judgment and decree dated 13.10.94, after accepting<\/p>\n
an affidavit dated 26.10.94 from the plaintiff to the effect that<\/p>\n
out of total sum of Rs.10,000\/- under the ARDR Scheme, a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.4,394\/- alone was given credit to by the plaintiff-<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
bank, a sum of Rs.2984\/- was to be adjusted towards the loan<\/p>\n
which the defendant had taken from the Kanjicode Service<\/p>\n
Co-operative Bank and a sum of Rs,2622\/- had to be adjusted<\/p>\n
towards the loan which he had taken from the Palghat District<\/p>\n
Co-operative   Bank,  Menonpara,     decreed   the  suit  for<\/p>\n
Rs.68,260\/- with costs and future interest at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.12% per annum as against 16.5% claimed by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
It is the said decree which is assailed in this appeal by the<\/p>\n
defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     5. The learned counsel for the appellant\/defendant<\/p>\n
reiterated the contentions and grounds raised in the<\/p>\n
memorandum of appeal.        The main submissions were as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     When the loan amount was to be discharged in yearly<\/p>\n
instalments extending up to 8 years, the plaintiff could take<\/p>\n
steps only for recovery of the defaulted instalments and not<\/p>\n
the entire loan amount. The suit filed for realisation of the<\/p>\n
entire loan amount even before the expiry of 8 years was<\/p>\n
premature and therefore not maintainable.    The court below<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
went wrong in apportioning the relief under ARDR Scheme<\/p>\n
between two other banks besides the plaintiff-bank and giving<\/p>\n
credit only to Rs.4,394\/- towards the loan amount in question.<\/p>\n
The affidavit filed in support of the said Scheme was filed only<\/p>\n
a few days prior to the disposal of the suit and it was accepted<\/p>\n
by the court below behind the back of the defendant. The<\/p>\n
court below also went wrong in permitting the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
create an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds<\/p>\n
regarding the Plaint B Schedule immovable properties<\/p>\n
belonging to the defendant in favour of the Sultanpet Branch<\/p>\n
of the Canara Bank, since that branch had nothing to do with<\/p>\n
the loan transaction in question and no equitable mortgage<\/p>\n
could be created towards the loan availed of by the defendant<\/p>\n
from the plaintiff-bank which is the Pudusseri branch of the<\/p>\n
Canara Bank.\n<\/p>\n
     6. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<\/p>\n
submissions in their entirety. As for the contention that the<\/p>\n
suit was filed prematurely even before the expiry of 8 years<\/p>\n
and that the plaintiff can recover only the defaulted<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
instalments and not the entire loan amount, Clause 6 of<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 which has been admittedly executed by the defendant<\/p>\n
reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “That in the event of the Borrower<\/p>\n
          committing breach of any of the terms and<\/p>\n
          conditions stipulated by the Bank or mis-<\/p>\n
          utilisation, non-utilisation or   only   partial<\/p>\n
          utilisation of the proceeds of the loan,<\/p>\n
          notwithstanding anything herein contained and<\/p>\n
          notwithstanding the stipulations if any that the<\/p>\n
          Borrower is allowed to pay the amounts due in<\/p>\n
          instalments; the bank shall have right to<\/p>\n
          demand payment of entire liability forthwith<\/p>\n
          and to take such other steps as may be<\/p>\n
          necessary to recover the same by enforcing the<\/p>\n
          securities.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7. The above clause is to the effect that in the event of<\/p>\n
the defendant\/borrower committed breach of any of the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions stipulated by the bank, the bank shall<\/p>\n
have the right to have the payment of the entire liability<\/p>\n
forthwith and to take such other steps as may be necessary to<\/p>\n
recover the same by enforcing the securities.            Yearly<\/p>\n
instalments payable was Rs.5,500\/- Admittedly, the defendant<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
was a defaulter. If so, Clause 6 of Ext.A3 was squarely<\/p>\n
attracted, entitling the bank to recover the entire amount in<\/p>\n
lump by enforcing the securities. Hence it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
the suit was premature.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8. With regard to the equitable mortgage created in<\/p>\n
favour of the Sultanpet branch of Canara Bank, it was<\/p>\n
specifically pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint. No exception<\/p>\n
whatsoever has been raised in the written statement with<\/p>\n
regard to paragraph 3 of the plaint. That was a matter which<\/p>\n
called for specific denial. In the absence of a specific denial<\/p>\n
in the written statement, the defendant cannot be heard to<\/p>\n
say that the bank was not entitled to create any equitable<\/p>\n
mortgage of plaint B Schedule properties in favour of the<\/p>\n
Sulthanpet branch of the Canara Bank by way of security for<\/p>\n
the enforcement of the land transaction in question.       The<\/p>\n
absence of such denial in the written statement should be<\/p>\n
treated as an admission. An admitted fact need not be proved<\/p>\n
in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
     9. Now coming to the relief of Rs.10,000\/- which the<\/p>\n
defendant was entitled under the ARDR Scheme, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
having given credit for the entire amount of Rs.10,000\/- in<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 account maintained by the plaintiff was not entitled to<\/p>\n
apportion the said amount between the plaintiff and two other<\/p>\n
banks from which the defendant had allegedly taken loan.<\/p>\n
After apportioning a sum of Rs.2,984\/- towards the Kanjikode<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank, another sum of Rs.2,622\/- towards<\/p>\n
the Palghat District Co-operative Bank, Menonpara, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff bank was giving a credit of Rs.4,394\/- only towards<\/p>\n
the loan in question. A sum of Rs.5606\/- was debited to the<\/p>\n
defendant’s account. This was resorted to by the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
the form of an affidavit filed on 26.10.94 enclosing a letter<\/p>\n
dated 24.10.94 from the Kanjikode Service Co-op.Bank Ltd.<\/p>\n
In the first place, a copy of the affidavit was not furnished to<\/p>\n
the defendant or his counsel and the defendant was not given<\/p>\n
an opportunity of confirming or denying the contents of the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
affidavit. The said affidavit was accepted by the court below<\/p>\n
behind the back of the defendant. That was not only illegal<\/p>\n
but was also in violation of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n
Hence, the court below went wrong in permitting the bank to<\/p>\n
debit the sum of Rs.5,606\/- in Ext.A5 statement of account.<\/p>\n
The defendant was entitled to the full credit of Rs.10,000\/- by<\/p>\n
way of relief towards the ARDR Scheme.               Whether the<\/p>\n
defendant would be entitled to any such reliefs with regard to<\/p>\n
the loans availed of by him from two other banks, was not an<\/p>\n
issue could     have been adjudicated in the present suit<\/p>\n
especially in the manner in which it was done.<\/p>\n
     The result of the foregoing discussion is that the decree<\/p>\n
passed by the court below to the extent that it has upheld the<\/p>\n
debit of Rs.5,606\/- in the defendant’s account towards the<\/p>\n
loan transaction is liable to be interfered with. The defendant<\/p>\n
is held entitled to the full relief of Rs.10,000\/- under the ARDR<\/p>\n
Scheme and the account will stand rectified to that extent.<\/p>\n
The bank will be entitled to execute the decree as per a<\/p>\n
A.S.No.537 of 1995
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
revised statement of accounts giving full credit of Rs,10,000\/-<\/p>\n
by way of relief under ARDR Scheme and calculating interest<\/p>\n
at the rate of Rs.12% on the amount due.        The Appeal is<\/p>\n
allowed in part to the limit extended mentioned above.<\/p>\n
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 537 of 1995() 1. P.S.ARUCHAMI … Petitioner Vs 1. CANARA BANK … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS,T.M.SUNIL For Respondent :SRI.V.M.KURIAN,A.V.THOMAS, The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :02\/06\/2009 O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. = […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009 - 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\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-29T23:17:34+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T23:17:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2058,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009\",\"name\":\"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T23:17:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009 - 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\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-29T23:17:34+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T23:17:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009"},"wordCount":2058,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009","name":"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T23:17:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-aruchami-vs-canara-bank-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.S.Aruchami vs Canara Bank on 2 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/183545","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=183545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}