{"id":199914,"date":"2009-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-06T01:18:43","modified_gmt":"2018-05-05T19:48:43","slug":"central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, A.A. Sayed<\/div>\n
                               - 1 -\n\n\n\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                                              \n                             O.O.C.J.\n\n\n\n                       APPEAL NO.590 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                                IN\n\n                        SUIT NO.646 OF 1993\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                                ...\n\n                      \n    Central Bank of India               ...Appellant\n\n              v\/s.\n                     \n    Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.\n\n    and ors.                            ...Respondents\n\n                                ...\n      \n   \n\n\n\n    Ms.V.Srivastava i\/b Consulta Juris for the Appellant.\n\n    Mr.F.Devitre     with Mr.J.P.Sen i\/b Fedral & Rashmikant\n\n\n\n\n\n    for Respondent No.1.\n\n    Mr.M.P.S.Rao i\/b Udwadia & Udeshi for Respondent\n\n    No.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                ...\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::\n                                     - 2 -\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                                                   \n                                      CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &\n\n                                              A.A.SAYED, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                      DATED: 13th March, 2009<\/p>\n
    P.C.: (PER D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
    1.    By this Appeal the original Defendant challenges<\/p>\n
    the judgment and decree dated 8-7-2002, 26-7-2002 and<\/p>\n
    1-11-2002      passed by the learned single Judge of this<\/p>\n
    Court in Suit No.646 of 1993.           That suit was filed by<\/p>\n
    Saraf    Chemicals      Pvt.    Ltd., the present          Respondent<\/p>\n
    No.1, claiming a money decree against the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    The   learned single Judge by the judgment and                    decree<\/p>\n
    impugned in the appeal has decreed the suit in favour<\/p>\n
    of       the        Plaintiffs          and       against              the<\/p>\n
    Appellant-defendant.        To the suit the Plaintiff-Saraf<\/p>\n
    Chemicals      Pvt.Ltd.     had    joined     only     the      present<\/p>\n
    Appellant      as   the Defendant.      The present          Appellant<\/p>\n
    had     taken    out    third     party   notice       against         the<\/p>\n
    Respondents Nos.        2 & 3.    That third party notice has<\/p>\n
    been discharged by the order impugned in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
    2.     The    facts which are material and              relevant          for<\/p>\n
    deciding      this    appeal are, the Plaintiff which is                      a<\/p>\n
    private limited company is engaged in the business of<\/p>\n
    manufacture        and export of latex gloves and carry                     on<\/p>\n
    its    business      through    one    of   its      division           viz.\n<\/p>\n
    M\/s.Sarex Overseas.          The present Appellant, which was<\/p>\n
    the    Defendant      in    the suit carries on           business          as<\/p>\n
    bankers      and    is a nationalised bank.             According           to<\/p>\n
    averments      in    the plaint, the Plaintiff had                 entered<\/p>\n
    into    an    agreement with M\/s.PIE Import & Export                      USA<\/p>\n
    (herein<\/p>\n
                 after referred to as “the said M\/s.PIE”                      for<\/p>\n
    the    sake    of brevity) for supply of 42,00,000                     latex<\/p>\n
    gloves    of    the    aggregate value of          US     $     1,28,100.\n<\/p>\n
    M\/s.PIE      placed an order pursuant to the order                     dated<\/p>\n
    21-1-1992      for    sale    and    supply    of      abovementioned<\/p>\n
    quantity      of    goods on the Plaintiff.            In respect           of<\/p>\n
    this    transaction,        the said M\/s.PIE agreed              to     make<\/p>\n
    payment      for the said goods by an irrevocable                    letter<\/p>\n
    of    credit to be issued in favour of the Plaintiff by<\/p>\n
    an    American      Bank,    which    letter    of      credit         would<\/p>\n
    provide      for payment to be made on FDA approval or 60<\/p>\n
    days    from    the Bill of Lading date if there                   was      no<\/p>\n
    response      from FDA.      According to agreement, the said<\/p>\n
    M\/s.PIE      arranged      to open an irrevocable             Letter        of<\/p>\n
    Credit dated 30-1-1992, which was issued by the Chase<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                      – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
    Manhattan Bank, New York-Respondent No.3 in favour of<\/p>\n
    the    Plaintiff as beneficiary for the said amount                          of<\/p>\n
    US     $   1,28,100,       which     was    advised        through         the<\/p>\n
    Defendant.       As per the terms of the letter of credit,<\/p>\n
    drafts     were to be drawn ‘at sight’ and payment would<\/p>\n
    be    made    to the negotiating bank by Chase                   Manhattan<\/p>\n
    Bank,      New    York-Respondent        No.2       on     the        latter<\/p>\n
    receiving      an    authenticated       cable advice            that      the<\/p>\n
    negotiating bank had negotiated the said sight drafts<\/p>\n
    in compliance with the terms of the letter of credit.\n<\/p>\n
    According to the Plaintiff, the goods were shipped by<\/p>\n
    them    on    27-3-1992      through       M\/s.Sea        Land      Service<\/p>\n
    Incorporated,        who issued their Bill of Lading                    dated<\/p>\n
    27-3-1992.        The   Plaintiff drew sight              drafts        dated<\/p>\n
    26-3-1992      for    the    said    sum of US        $    1,28,100          as<\/p>\n
    required       under       the   letter       of        credit.            The<\/p>\n
    Appellant\/Defendant          negotiated      the documents              under<\/p>\n
    the    said    letter of credit and made payment                    to     the<\/p>\n
    Plaintiff      of    the    sum of Rs.31,08,915\/-              being       the<\/p>\n
    amount     equivalent to 85% of the Rupee equivalent                         of<\/p>\n
    the    letter of credit amount, which payment was                        made<\/p>\n
    on    or   about 9-4-1992.         According to the            Plaintiff,<\/p>\n
    the    payment of the aforesaid amount of 85% was                        made<\/p>\n
    by    the Appellant by crediting the said amount to the<\/p>\n
    Plaintiff’s account namely “S\/L A\/C Marginal Deposits<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
    against       Foreign         Bills       Purchased-        A\/c.           Sarex<\/p>\n
    Overseas”        with    the Defendant at their Bombay,                     Main<\/p>\n
    Branch.       According to the Plaintiff, at the                       request<\/p>\n
    of    the    Plaintiff, the Defendant used and kept                         with<\/p>\n
    themselves        as    margin money in respect of an                    Inland<\/p>\n
    letter      of    credit      opened by the Defendant,                 at     the<\/p>\n
    instance of the Plaintiff, in favour of M\/s.Shangrila<\/p>\n
    Latex       Industries         Pvt.Ltd.         for        the       sum        of<\/p>\n
    Rs.30,24,000\/-.           According        to     the      Plaintiff,           it<\/p>\n
    appears that the Respondent No.3 did not make payment<\/p>\n
    to the Defendant-Appellant.                Therefore, the Defendant<\/p>\n
    made    an    application          dated    28-8-1992         to     the      RBI<\/p>\n
    seeking      permission        of RBI to file suit against                    the<\/p>\n
    Respondent        No.3    to      recover their claim             under       the<\/p>\n
    letter      of    credit stating ” that the                documents          had<\/p>\n
    been     negotiated          by     the    Defendant\/Appellant                  on<\/p>\n
    9-4-1992      and      that the Respondent No.3 had                  rejected<\/p>\n
    bonafide      documents        negotiated        strictly         under       the<\/p>\n
    Letter of their Credit”.              According to the Plaintiff,<\/p>\n
    the    Respondent No.3 on behalf of the Appellant filed<\/p>\n
    proceedings to intervene in legal proceedings pending<\/p>\n
    in the Court of the United States District Court, for<\/p>\n
    the     District        of    New    Jersey       and      in     the       said<\/p>\n
    application        they have stated that the Appellant                        had<\/p>\n
    negotiated        the    documents on 9-4-1992 and                  therefore<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
    the    Defendant        had    security interest in             the      goods<\/p>\n
    covered      by    the    Letter of       Credit.        The      Plaintiff<\/p>\n
    stated that Inland Letter of Credit in favour of M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    Shangrila        expired and therefore the Plaintiff sought<\/p>\n
    return      of margin money which was kept in relation to<\/p>\n
    that    Inland      Letter      of Credit.       But     the      Defendant<\/p>\n
    refused to release the amount and hence the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
    has    filed      the suit for release of that                amount        and<\/p>\n
    also for recovery of the balance 15% amount.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     The    Defendant,\n                             ig     on being served,          appeared          and\n\n    filed    their      written      statement.          In     the      written\n                           \n    statement,        there were several defences raised by the\n\n    Defendant,        but    the principal defence raised by                    the\n\n    Defendant        was    that the Plaintiff does not have                    any\n      \n\n\n    cause       of    action      against      the    Defendant          as     the\n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Defendant has not received any amount either from the<\/p>\n
    Plaintiff’s        foreign bearers namely M\/s.PIE or                     their<\/p>\n
    bank    namely      the Respondent No.3.           According to             the<\/p>\n
    Defendant,        the    Letter of Credit is conditional                    one<\/p>\n
    and since the conditions have not been fulfilled, the<\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs        are not entitled to any amount as nothing<\/p>\n
    is    due    and payable to the Plaintiff.                According           to<\/p>\n
    the    Defendant,        so    far   as     Letter       of     Credit        is<\/p>\n
    concerned,        the    Defendant merely forwarded the                   said<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
    Letter    of    Credit    and    were only    an    advised         bank<\/p>\n
    without    there being any obligation on their part                     to<\/p>\n
    make    the    payment.    It is the case of the            Defendant<\/p>\n
    that    it accepted the documents on collection                  basis.\n<\/p>\n
    The    Appellant    also took out the third party                notice<\/p>\n
    against    the    Respondents Nos.      2 & 3.      Initially           in<\/p>\n
    the    suit    there were 12 issues framed, but by                 order<\/p>\n
    dated    1st    July, 1998 the issues were          recast.           The<\/p>\n
    recast issues are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                        ig      I S S U E S\n                      \n              (i)    Whether    the suit is      misconceived,            not\n\n              maintainable      and the plaintiff has no               cause\n\n              of    action as alleged in paragraph 1;                of the\n      \n\n\n              written statement?\n   \n\n\n\n              (ii)    Whether the suit is bad for             nonjoinder\n\n\n\n\n\n              of necessary parties?\n\n\n\n              (iii)    Whether the defendants dealt with                  the\n\n\n\n\n\n              document    under      the L\/C on the basis of              the\n\n<\/pre>\n
              agreement alleged in para 8(v) of the W.S.?\n<\/p>\n
              (iv)    Whether    the defendants negotiated                the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                             – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
      drafts      and    other documents drawn under                 the<\/p>\n
      said    L\/C    issued      by Chase     Manhattan           bank,<\/p>\n
      Newyord      and    become    owners        of     the       said<\/p>\n
      documents?\n<\/p>\n
      (v)    Whether      the documents were sent               on     an<\/p>\n
      express      understanding that no payment                  could<\/p>\n
      be     made    to    the     plaintiffs        unless          the<\/p>\n
      defendant         received     the      same       from        the<\/p>\n
      corresponding bank?\n<\/p>\n
      (vi)    Whether      the    entry of      the      amount        of<\/p>\n
      Rs.31,08,912\/-        in    defendants sundry             ledger<\/p>\n
      A\/c was only a notional entry?\n<\/p>\n
      (vii)    Whether the said credit entry was made<\/p>\n
      as    per    any    agreement only with a             view       to<\/p>\n
      assist the plaintiffs?\n<\/p>\n
      (viii)      Whether the said defendant should                    be<\/p>\n
      ordered and decreed to pay and release to the<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs        the amount claimed in prayer                 (a)<\/p>\n
      of the plaint?\n<\/p>\n
      (ix)    Whether      the said defendant            should        be<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
                ordered and decreed to pay and release to the<\/p>\n
                plaintiffs      the amounts claimed in prayer (b)<\/p>\n
                of the plaint?\n<\/p>\n
                (x) What order and decree?\n<\/p>\n
    4.    It appears that oral and documentary evidence was<\/p>\n
    led    on    behalf of the Plaintiff and           the      Defendant.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    The    learned      single    Judge    considering        the      entire\n\n    evidence      in    detail and by her        exhaustive        judgment\n\n    held    that    the\n                            \n                             defence of the      Defendant        that      the\n\n    documents      were accepted on collection basis and that\n                           \n    the    Letter      of    Credit    was not    negotiated         by     the\n\n    Defendant-Bank cannot be accepted.              The learned Judge\n\n    held    that the Letter of Credit was negotiated by the\n      \n\n\n    Defendant-Bank          and 85% payment was actually made                 to\n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    the Plaintiff and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled<\/p>\n
    to a money decree against the Defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     We have heard the learned counsel appearing                      for<\/p>\n
    the    Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing                      for<\/p>\n
    the    Respondents.         With    their help,      we     have      gone<\/p>\n
    through the entire record.            We find from the judgment<\/p>\n
    of    the    learned single Judge, which is             impugned          in<\/p>\n
    this    Appeal      that    the     learned    single       Judge       has<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
    discussed all the rival pleadings of the parties, the<\/p>\n
    entire      documents and the oral evidence in detail for<\/p>\n
    recording      her    findings.     At the    hearing         of     this<\/p>\n
    appeal,      the    learned    Counsel   appearing           for       the<\/p>\n
    Appellant could not point out to us that any piece of<\/p>\n
    relevant       and    material    evidence      has        not       been<\/p>\n
    considered      by the learned single Judge for recording<\/p>\n
    her    findings.      The learned Counsel for the Appellant<\/p>\n
    mainly      tried    to assail the finding recorded by                 the<\/p>\n
    learned      single    Judge that the Letter of Credit                 was<\/p>\n
    negotiated by the Appellant-bank on collection basis.\n<\/p>\n
    However,      in our opinion, two documents which are                    on<\/p>\n
    record      are enough to uphold the finding recorded                    by<\/p>\n
    the    learned      single Judge that the Letter of               Credit<\/p>\n
    was    negotiated      by the Appellant-bank and             that      the<\/p>\n
    documents were not accepted on collection basis only;\n<\/p>\n
    One    is    the letter written by the Defendant-bank                    to<\/p>\n
    RBI seeking its permission to file a suit against the<\/p>\n
    third    Respondent.        In that letter the Appellant\/Bank<\/p>\n
    has    clearly      accepted that the Letter of Credit                 was<\/p>\n
    negotiated      by    the    Appellant-Bank       and      that        the<\/p>\n
    Respondent      No.3 has wrongly declined to make payment<\/p>\n
    to    it.     If    the Appellant had    not      negotiated           the<\/p>\n
    Letter      of Credit and made payment to the              Plaintiff,<\/p>\n
    there was no question of the Defendant moving the RBI<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
    for    its    permission     to    file    a    suit     against         the<\/p>\n
    Respondent      No.3 for recovery of the amount.                    Unless<\/p>\n
    the amount is paid by the Appellant to the Plaintiff,<\/p>\n
    there was no question of the Appellant being entitled<\/p>\n
    to    recover the amount from the Respondent No.3.                       The<\/p>\n
    only    defence      raised in relation to that letter                   was<\/p>\n
    that the letter was written because the Plaintiff had<\/p>\n
    promised to pay for the cost of litigation that would<\/p>\n
    be    lodged    by the Appellant against             the     Respondent<\/p>\n
    No.3.     In    our opinion, in other words,               this       means<\/p>\n
    that<\/p>\n
            the Appellant which is a nationalised bank                       was<\/p>\n
    prepared to take a false stand in the court of law in<\/p>\n
    litigation      that    it   proposed to lodge           against         the<\/p>\n
    Respondent      No.3,    only     because      the    Plaintiff          had<\/p>\n
    promised      to    fund that litigation.         In our        opinion,<\/p>\n
    this explanation is incapable of being accepted.                         The<\/p>\n
    second document, which according to us belies all the<\/p>\n
    defences      raised by the Appellant is the               application<\/p>\n
    filed    by    the Respondent No.3 in American                 Court       on<\/p>\n
    behalf    of    the    Appellant.      In that       application,            a<\/p>\n
    clear    statement      was made that the Letter of                 Credit<\/p>\n
    has    been    negotiated by the Appellant and                 therefore<\/p>\n
    the    underlying      goods    were      the    security         of     the<\/p>\n
    Appellant.         We do not find any explanation given                    on<\/p>\n
    behalf    of the Defendant for making such statement in<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
    the    application filed before the American Court,                          if<\/p>\n
    it    is    the case of the Appellant that the Letter                        of<\/p>\n
    Credit      was    not negotiated by it.           In    our      opinion,<\/p>\n
    considering        the exhaustive judgment delivered by the<\/p>\n
    learned      single      Judge, wherein every point has                   been<\/p>\n
    considered        in    detail    and in view of what             we      have<\/p>\n
    found there is no room to interfere with the judgment<\/p>\n
    and    decree      impugned      in   the    Appeal.         So     far      as<\/p>\n
    discharge of the third party notices taken out by the<\/p>\n
    Appellant      against      the Respondents Nos.             2 &      3    are<\/p>\n
    concerned,        no<\/p>\n
                            steps were taken by the Appellant                    to<\/p>\n
    prosecute      those      notices.       In fact,       the      Appellant<\/p>\n
    opposed       the       third    party      when    it       wanted          to<\/p>\n
    cross-examine the witnesses of the Plaintiff.                         In our<\/p>\n
    opinion,      therefore,        in    these    circumstances,              the<\/p>\n
    learned      single      Judge    was    perfectly       justified           in<\/p>\n
    discharging the third party notices.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     We    find      no substance in the         Appeal.          Appeal,<\/p>\n
    therefore,        fails    and is dismissed.          No order as            to<\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     At the request of the learned Counsel                     appearing<\/p>\n
    for the Respondent No.1, it is directed that the bank<\/p>\n
    guarantee      furnished by the Respondent No.1                   pursuant<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
    to   the   interim    order passed in the Appeal          may      be<\/p>\n
    discharged    after    expiry of a period of       four       weeks<\/p>\n
    from today.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
                                         (A.A.SAYED, J.)<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:24:33 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009 Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, A.A. Sayed – 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO.590 OF 2003 IN SUIT NO.646 OF 1993 … Central Bank of India …Appellant v\/s. Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. and ors. …Respondents … […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCentral Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 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\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-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=\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-05T19:48:43+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\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T19:48:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1994,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T19:48:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 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":"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 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\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-05T19:48:43+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\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T19:48:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009"},"wordCount":1994,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009","name":"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T19:48:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-saraf-chemicals-pvt-ltd-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central Bank Of India vs Saraf Chemicals Pvt.Ltd on 13 March, 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\/199914","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=199914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199914\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}