{"id":187769,"date":"1996-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996"},"modified":"2017-09-12T13:14:07","modified_gmt":"2017-09-12T07:44:07","slug":"state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: Kirpal.J.<\/div>\n
Bench: J.S. Verma, B.N. Kirpal<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRINATH GUPTA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t25\/10\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nJ.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     KIRPAL.J.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment
\nof the\tDivision Bench\tof the\tRajasthan High\tCourt  which
\ndismissed the  appeal filed  by the  appellant\tagainst\t the
\njudgment of  the Single\t Judge\twho  had  allowed  the\twrit
\npetition filed by respondent No. 1 quashing the order of the
\nCentral Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred
\nto as  ‘the Tribunal) which had upheld dismissal of the said
\nrespondent No.\t1 pursuant  to the proceeding which had been
\nheld.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as cashier-cum\n<\/p>\n
-godown keeper\tby the\tappellant bank\tin the year 1961. He
\nwas promoted  as Head-Cashier on 25.3.1970 and was posted at
\nSunel Branch  of the Bank. In June, 1973, he was transferred
\nto Sangod Branch.\n<\/p>\n
     On 31.3.1975  the appellant  lodged  with\tthe  Central
\nBureau\tof   Investigation  (hereinatter   referred  to\t  as
\n‘C.B.I.’) an  F.I.R. in\t which it  was, inter  alia, alleged
\nthat while working as the cashier at the Sunel Branch during
\nthe year  1970-1971, the  said respondent  had demanded\t and
\naccepted illegal  gratification from  a number of persons in
\nconsideration of  his showing  favours to  them\t in  getting
\ntheir loans  sanctioned.  The  C.B.I.  submitted  its  final
\nreport on  21.2.1977 stating  that no  reliable evidence was
\navailable  in  support\tof  the\t allegations  and  that\t the
\nevidence against  the said  respondent was scanty. The final
\nreport was  accepted  by  the  Court  on  2.11.1977  and  no
\nprosecution of the respondent took place.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  meantime departmental disciplinary proceeadings
\nwere commenced by the appellant. On 22.3.1976 a charge-sheet
\nwas served on the respondent. Those charge wee as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “1)    You\t demanded  and\taccepted
\n     bribe from the following persons as
\n     mentioned\t  against    each    for
\n     arranging sanction of bank loans in
\n     their favour:<\/p>\n
\n     NAME\t\t AMOUNT OF BRIBE\n    S\/Shri\t\t   Rs.\n    Ashraf Ali\t\t   50\/-\n    Dhana Lal\t\t   50\/-\n    Raghu Nath\t\t  100\/-\n    Mitthu Lal\t\t   50\/-\n    Mohan Lal\t\t  350\/-\n    Bapu Lal\t\t  300\/-\n    Ram Singh\t\t  350\/-\n    Kanhi Ram\t\t  350\/-\n    Mangu\t\t  375\/-\n<\/pre>\n
     ii)   You demanded and accepted Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     20\/- in  the month\t of may\t 1973 as
\n     bribe from\t smt. Phuli Bai sweepers
\n     at\t Sunel\t Branch\t for   arranging
\n     payment of\t bonus amounting  to Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     80\/- payable to her.\n<\/p>\n
     iii)   You\t demanded  and\taccepted
\n     bribe of  Rs. 500\/-  (Rs. 50\/-  per
\n     month) w.e.f.  August, 1972 to May,
\n     1973  from\t  Shri\tNemi  Chand  for
\n     arranging\tfor   him  a   temporary
\n     appointment of a Peon at the branch
\n     on 5th August, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     iv)   You\traised a fictitious loan
\n     of Rs.  1000\/- at the branch in the
\n     name  of  one  Shri  Panna\t Lal  by
\n     getting the same guaranteed by your
\n     brother Shri Jagdish Chandra.”\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tInquiry Officer\t was appointed,\t the inquiry
\nproceedings commenced. Deposition of a number of prosecution
\nwitnesses was  recorded including  the statements  of Ashraf
\nAli and Dhanna Lal, from whom bribe was alleged to have been
\ndemanded for  getting the loan sanctioned. Some of the other
\nwitnesses,  however,   turned  hostile.\t Statements  of\t the
\nconcerned witnesses including those of Ashraf Ali and Dhanna
\nLal had earlier been recorded by the appellant under Section
\n161 Cr.P.C. During the examination of these witnesses before
\nthe inquiry officer, these statements were brought on record
\nas part\t of the\t deposition. It appears that copies of these
\nstatements were\t given to  the respondent workman in advance
\nand the\t contents of the same were admitted by the witnesses
\nand opportunity\t was given  to the  said workman  to  cross-
\nexamine them.\n<\/p>\n
     The Inquiry  Officer submitted  his report on 10.2.1979
\nand as\ta  consequence\tthereof,  a  notice  was  issued  to
\nrespondent No.\t1  to  show  cause  why\t he  should  not  be
\ndismissed from service. A reply was submitted by the workman
\non 11.3.1979 and on 27.6.1979, the appellant passed an order
\ndismissing him from service. An appeal, against the order of
\ndismissal  filed   before  the\t appropriate  authority\t was
\ndismissed on 2.8.1979.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent   then  approached\t  the\tConciliation
\nOfficer,  Kota\t and  a\t failure  report  was  sent  to\t the
\nGovernment. Thereupon  the Central  Government referred\t the
\nfollowing dispute to the Tribunal :\n<\/p>\n
     “Whether\tthe    action\tof   the
\n     management of State Bank of Bikaner
\n     & Jaipur  in dismissing  Shri  S.N.\n<\/p>\n
     Gupta, Head Cashier, Pipalda Branch
\n     in District  Kota with  effect from
\n     6.7.1979 is  justified If\tnot,  to
\n     what   relief    is   the\t workman
\n     concerned entitled ?”\n<\/p>\n
     Vide  Award  dt.  9.4.1984,  the  Tribunal\t upheld\t the
\ndismissal of  the said\trespondent. The workman then filed a
\nwrit petition  number 631  of 1984 before the Rajasthan High
\nCourt at  Jaipur. By  judgment dated 17.12.1984 the Award of
\nthe Tribunal  was set  aside  and  the\tcase  remanded\twith
\ncertain directions,  inter alia, relating to the question as
\nto whether  the domestic  enquiry was  defective or  not and
\nwhether the punishment awarded was justified. Thereafter the
\nTribunal again\tpassed an  award dated\t29.5.1985 confirming
\nits earlier decision and it upheld the dismissal of the said
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  No. 1  then filed a fresh writ petition
\nin the Rajasthan High Court. Vide judgment dated 5.8.1992, a
\nSingle Judge  of the  High Court  allowed the writ petition.
\nThe award  dated 29.5  1985 was quashed and respondent No. 1
\nwas directed  to be  taken on  duty forthwith.\tIn regard to
\nback wages,  it was  held that\trespondent No.\t1  would  be
\nentitled to  50% of  the total amount which may be found due
\nto him\tsubject to  any deduction therefrom if he had worked
\nduring that  period. The  appellant  then  filed  an  appeal
\nbefore the Division Bench of the High Court but the same was
\ndismissed on  21.10.1992 with a modification that respondent
\nbe paid 30% of salary or the period during which the inquiry
\nhad remained  pending. Aggrieved  by the  said judgment, the
\nappellant has preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  had succeded  before the  High Court on
\ntwo grounds,  firstly; the High Court came to the conclusion
\nthat the  statements which  had been  recorded\tunder  under
\nSection 161  Cr.P.C. were not admissible and, therefore, the
\ndacision of  the  Tribunal  stood  vitiated.  Secondly,\t the
\nSingle Judge  had  also\t held  that  during  the  course  of
\ndisciplinary  proceedings,  C.B.I.  Inspector  had  remained
\ntherein and  his  presence  itself  had\t also  vitiated\t the
\nproceedings because the witnesses were under a fear to state
\nthe whole  truth contrary  to what had been recorded earlier
\nby the C.B.I. Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are
\nconcerned, we find that the said statements were supplied to
\nthe respondent\ton 1.11.1976. The evidence of these persons,
\nwe are\tinformed, was  recorded on  5.4.1977. The  procedure
\nwhich was  followed by\tthe Inquiry Officer, relating to the
\ntaking on  record of  these  statements\t under\tSection\t 161
\nCr.P.C. would be evident from the proceedings of the Inquiry
\nOfficer which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “The bank\trepresentative\tproduced
\n     his  witness   Sri\t Dhannalal   s\/o
\n     Mangilal  residence  of  Sunel  for
\n     evidence. At  this moment\tSri S.L.
\n     Gupta,   employees\t  representative
\n     raised   his   objection\tto   the
\n     procedure of  reading the statement
\n     of\t  the\t witnesses    by    bank
\n     representative previously recorded.
\n     With  a   view   to   offer   equal
\n     opportunity to  both the  sides and
\n     to enable\tthe bank  to present the
\n     case in  the proper  manner,  as  a
\n     norm of  the  domestic  enquiry,  I
\n     allow this\t Procedure  to\tcontinue
\n     and proceed further in the case.
\n     The  statement   of  Dhannalal  s\/o
\n     Mangilal previously recorded by the
\n     CBI Inspector  was read over to him
\n     by\t the  bank  representative.  Sri
\n     Dhannalal admitted\t the contents of
\n     the statement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Cross\t  examination\t      by
\n     defence……….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     According to  the appellant  in respect  of Ashraf\t Ali
\nalso a\tsimilar procedure  was followed.  It  is  now  well-
\nsettled that strict rules of evidence are not applicable and
\nare not\t required to  be followed in domestic inquiry [ e.g.
\nsee State  of Haryana  Vs. Rattan  Singh 1982  (1) LLJ.46 ].
\nWhat has  to be\t ensured is  that the  principles of natural
\njustuce are complied with and the delinquent workman has the
\nopportunity of defending himself.\n<\/p>\n
     The statements  under Section  161 Cr.P.C.\t may not  be
\nadmissible in  the criminal  trial, but\t the said statemetns
\ncan be\tproduced in a disciplinary inquiry like the present.
\nThe person  who made  the statement has been examined before
\nthe inquiry  officer. It  was open  to the  witness to\thave
\nstated orally  the entire  contents of\twhat was recorded in
\nhis statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Instead of following
\nthis time  consuming procedure,\t the said statement recorded
\nunder Section  161 Cr.P.C.  was read over to the witness who
\nadmitted the  contents thereof.\t In  this  way\tthe  earlier
\nstatement under\t Section 161  Cr.P.C. became  a part  of the
\nexamination-in-chief  of  the  witness\tbefore\tthe  Inquiry
\nOfficer. It  is not  in dispute that the said statements had
\nbeen given to the respondent in advance and full opportunity
\nwas granted  to the  respondent\t to  crossexamine  the\tsaid
\nwitnesses.  This   being  the\tcase,  it  is  difficult  to
\nappreciate as  to how  the High Court could have come to the
\nconclusion that the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
     In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we are fortified
\nby the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in the
\ncase of\t STATE OF MYSORE VS. S.S. MAKAPUR, 1963 [2] SCR 943.
\nIn that\t case also,  statements of  witnesses which had been
\nrecorded behind\t the back  of the  delinquent  officer\twere
\ntaken on  record and an opportunity of cross-examination was
\ngiven. The  High Court\thad come  to the conclusion that the
\nprinciples of  natural justice had not been followed because
\nof the\tadmission in  evidence\tof  such  statements.  While
\nallowing the  appeal and  rejecting the\t contention  of\t the
\nrespondent  therein,  this  Court  in  S.S.  Makapur’s\tcase
\n(supra) at page 951 observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “When   the   evidence   is   oral,
\n     normally  the  examination\t of  the
\n     witness will  in its entirety, take
\n     place before the party charged, who
\n     will  have\t  full\topportunity   of
\n     cross-examining him.  The\tposition
\n     is\t the  same  when  a  witness  is
\n     called,   the    statement\t   given
\n     previously by  him behind\tthe back
\n     of the  party is  put to  him,  and
\n     admitted  in   evidence,\ta   copy
\n     thereof is\t given to the party, and
\n     he\t is   given  an\t opportunity  to
\n     cross-examine him.\t To  require  in
\n     that case\tthat the contents of the
\n     previous\tstatement    should   be
\n     repeated by  the  witness\tword  by
\n     word, and\tsentence by sentence, is
\n     to insist\ton bare\t technicalities,
\n     and rules\tof natural  justice  are
\n     matters  not   of\t from\tbut   of
\n     substance. In  our Opinion they are
\n     sufficiently  complied   with  when
\n     previous\tstatements    given   by
\n     witnesses are  read over  to  them,
\n     marked on\ttheir admission,  copies
\n     thereof  of  given\t to  the  person
\n     charged,  and   he\t is   given   an
\n     opportunity to cross-examine them.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The aforesaid  obervations apply in the present case as
\nwell. In  KHATRI &  ORS. ETC.  Vs. STATE  OF  BIHAR  &\tORS.
\n1981(3) SCR  145 dealing  with petition\t under Article 32 of
\nthe Constitution,  the question arose whether the statements
\nmade  before   the  police   officer  in   the\t course\t  of
\ninvestigation could  be directed  to be produced and whether
\nthe bar\t of Section  162 Cr.P.C.  applied or  not.  In\tthis
\nconnection, it was observed, at page 152, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “It bars  the use\tof any statement
\n     made before a police officer in the
\n     course of\tan  investigation  under
\n     Chanter XII,  whether recorded in a
\n     police diary  or otherwise,  but by
\n     the express  terms of  the\t Section
\n     this bar  is applicable  only where
\n     such statement is sought to be used
\n     at any  inquiry or trial in respect
\n     of any  offence under investigation
\n     at the time when such statement was
\n     made’. If the statement made before
\n     a police  officer in  the course of
\n     an investigation  under chapter XII
\n     is\t sought\t  to  be   used\t in  any
\n     proceeding other than an inquiry or
\n     trial or  even  at\t an  inquiry  of
\n     trial but\tin respect of an offence
\n     other than\t that  which  was  under
\n     investigation at the time when such
\n     statement\twas  made,  the\t bar  or
\n     Section   162    would    not    be
\n     attracted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr.  Tarkunde,  learned  counsel  for  the\t respondent,
\nhowever,   placed   strong   reliance\ton   the   following
\nobservations of this court in M\/S. KOSORAM COTTON MILLS LTD.
\nVS. GANGADHAR AND OTHERS, 1964(2) SCR 809 at page 827:\n<\/p>\n
     “Further  we   can\t take\tjudicial
\n     notice of the fact that many of our
\n     industrial workers\t are  illiterate
\n     and     sometimes\t    even     the
\n     representatives of labour union may
\n     not be  present tc\t defend them. In
\n     such a case to read over a prepared
\n     statement in a few minutes and then
\n     ask the  workmen to  cross- examine
\n     would  make   a  mockery\tof   the
\n     opporturity  that\t  the  rules  of
\n     natural justice  require  that  the
\n     workmen  should   have  to\t  defend
\n     themselves.   It\t seems\t to   us
\n     therefore that  when one is dealing
\n     with    domestic\t inquiries    in
\n     industrial\t matters,   the\t  proper
\n     course for\t the  management  is  to
\n     examine  the   witnesses  from  the
\n     beginning\tto   the  end\tin   the
\n     presence  of  the\tworkman\t at  the
\n     enquiry  itself.  Oral  examination
\n     always takes  much\t longer\t than  a
\n     mere   reading    of   a\tprepared
\n     statement of  the same  length  and
\n     brings  home   the\t evidence   more
\n     clearly to\t the person against whom
\n     the   inquiry    is   being   held.
\n     Generally\tspeaking   therefore  we
\n     should expect a domestic inquiry by
\n     the  management   to  the\tof  this
\n     kind.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  aforesaid   observations  do\t imply\t that\toral
\nexamination should  take place\tand reading  of\t a  prepared
\nstatement may  cause prejudice\tbut the\t Court did  not hold
\nthat the  procedure which  was referred to in SHIBAVASAPPA’S
\nCASE (supra) was illegal. In fact in the very next sentence,
\nit was observed in the said case as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Even so  we recognise the force of
\n     the  argument   on\t behalf\t of  the
\n     appellant that  the main principles
\n     of natural\t justice  cannot  change
\n     from  tribunal   to  tribunal   and
\n     therefore, it  may be  possible  to
\n     have another method of conducting a
\n     domestic inquiry  (though we  again
\n     repeat that  this should not be the
\n     rule but the exception) and that is
\n     in\t the   manner\tlaid   down   in
\n     Shibavasappa’s  case.  The\t minimum
\n     that   we\t  shall\t  expect   where
\n     witnesses are not examined from the
\n     very beginning  at the  enquiry  in
\n     the presence  of the person charged
\n     is that  the person  charged should
\n     be given  a copy  of the statements
\n     made by  the witnesses which are to
\n     be used  at  the  inquiry\twell  in
\n     advance before  the inquiry  begins
\n     and when  we say  that the\t copy of
\n     the statements should be given well
\n     in advance\t we mean  that it should
\n     be given  at least\t two days before
\n     the inquiry is to begin.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  present  case,  statements\t under\tSection\t 161
\nCr.P.C. had  been given\t to respondent\tNo, 1  a  number  of
\nmonths before  the witnesses  were examined. Therefore, even
\nthe minimum  requirement which\tis referred  to\t in  KESORAM
\nCOTTON MILLS LTD. case (supra) was complied with.\n<\/p>\n
     From the aforesaid discussion the only conclusion which
\ncould  be  arrived  at\tis  that  in  the  present  case  no
\nillegality had\tbeen  committed\t by  taking  on\t record\t the
\nstatements which had been made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
\nthe conclusion\tof the\tHigh Court  which has  held that the
\ndisciplinary proceedings stood vitiated, is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
     Coming to the question with regard to the presence of a
\nC.B.I. Inspector  during the  disciplinary proceedings,\t Mr.
\nG.L Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn our
\nattention to the observation in the award of the Tribunal in
\nwhich it  is stated that the C.B.I. Inspector was one of the
\nwitnesses in  the enquiry.  When the objection regarding his
\npresence was  raised then  he was  removed from\t there. This
\nbeing so,  one of  the reasons given by the single Judge for
\nsetting aside  the award,  was based  on a wrong premise. In
\nfact, the  Division Bench  did not base its decision on this
\nground.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The
\nJudgments of  the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
\nRajasthan High\tCourt are  set aside. During the pendency of
\nthis appeal,  by reason\t of the interim order passed by this
\nCourt, certain payments have been made to the respondent. In
\nthe circumstances  of the  case we direct that the amount so
\npaid is not required to be refunded. There will be, however,
\nno order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996 Author: Kirpal.J. Bench: J.S. Verma, B.N. Kirpal PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR Vs. RESPONDENT: SRINATH GUPTA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/1996 BENCH: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-187769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996 - 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\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-12T07:44:07+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T07:44:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2649,\"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\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996\",\"name\":\"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T07:44:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996 - 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\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-12T07:44:07+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996","datePublished":"1996-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T07:44:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996"},"wordCount":2649,"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\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996","name":"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T07:44:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-vs-srinath-gupta-anr-on-25-october-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/187769","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=187769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}