{"id":200161,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-21T22:37:15","modified_gmt":"2015-01-21T17:07:15","slug":"prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 1267\" DAY OF' OC'FOBER':2()E1:'OL..\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUs'r1c:E\"K; 1,.1\\r;;A1\\1}_.rD'i\\3:A.\ufb01'\u00a7Ii'.~ \n\nAND \n'r1-:E HONBLE MRE.J'U:STICE.  E\nRFA NO.~.1_ 147109 \"2Do&j3. ._(1\\\/\u00a3()'Ei\\--I)\"' \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. Sri.\u00a5)Iit}i'V\u00abit?r1jLJ;(1iI1\u00a7  \nS \/ 0,8;-Chaf\ufb01dagrgra S_het_tyfJa1n,\nAge? >    \nR%[at';'B\u00e9ia\ufb02_jbalIy\",._ \" \" \n\nKa1t'I1od_VVii?-Eage and Post,\n*.Ku--I1'dap'utf'a  '\" .. ' '\n\n2. Sr1*:t._._Vinuiha'B\"P Raj,\n_ . _W\/ 0; P.1:it11viraj'J ain,\n..  Age 42 years. \n' R,\/a1:...B01amb'\u00e9.l1y,\n  ..K'aj,thdd__ViIlage and Post,\n' .I{u.1fidapLi.~~ra Taluk. ....APPELLANTS\n\n[By  . Nataraj, Advocate)\n\nE' '.~  Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltci,\n\nIncorporated under the\nCompany's Act, 1956\n\nA\"\n\n\n\nIN.)\n\n(No.1 of 1956) having its\n\nRegistered office at Manipal of\n\nUdupi Taiuk and having a\n\nbranch amongst other Branches\n\nat Kundapura Kasaba Village,\n\nKundapura Taluk and\n\nRepresented herein by their  \n\nPower of Attorney.  . A\n\nPrincipal officer and Manager.K__ \nSri.M.Ramakrishna Karabap. . 2 \n46 years. S \/ o.Laxrninaray-aria Kara--ba'.\u00bb,  A if\nR \/ at Kundapura Kasaba _Vi'i1age_, \"\nKundapura Ta1uk_&'_Pos't. \"  1' \n\n2. Sri.Mura1idharV Prabhui.\"   \nS\/ o Vittal 4E'I'abhL:_','''' 0' \" \nAge: Major. 3...-'  _\n     V ,\nM \/ s. Sahyadri 'Cashew: Processors.\nI-Iosav Horavatta. Kttrnta; --~  V  \nUttara Karnataka.  M 0 ...RESPONDENTS\n\n(By  8: Assts. Advocate for R. 1)\n\n .fi1eduVi1,'--s....S36 of cpc against the Judgement\n\n    dated: 20.6.2003 passed in\n\"\"O.'S-i--._No';'}.'i;}{)'\/ 1.999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),\n\nKu'n.dapur.af;' decreeing the suit of money.\n\n_ 'A  This Appeal coming on for hearing this day.\n\"B\".'IvIANOHAR, J., delivered the following: -\n\nAw\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The appellants are the defendants 1  3<\/p>\n
the court below, being aggrieved by the  M<\/p>\n
decree dated 20~\u00bb6\u00ab2003 made myo.’s’.No;.ioo,i:i9gs’siege.<\/p>\n
the Court of Civil Judge (Sr..Dn.);”Kiindapti.riA .piccfel1″ifedt’V<\/p>\n
this regular first appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2. The brief facts of case :.as:ZfollowsV:V’Ad
\nThe plaintiff who   in this<\/p>\n
appeal filed a ;_the  for recovery of<\/p>\n
a sum of’–   interest at 22% pa.\n<\/p>\n
compounded the date of suit till the date<\/p>\n
of realization” the ddecretal amount. In the plaint, the<\/p>\n
ihas zcorit\ufb02erided that Manipal Soubhagya Nidhi<\/p>\n
 {Toinpany incorporated under the indian<\/p>\n
   1958. The plaintiff has been exempted<\/p>\n
 from uolrrtaining money lenders’ license by the<\/p>\n
 erGovernment of Karnataka as per noti\ufb01cation dated<\/p>\n
 .9~..’e3–1992. As per the Articles of Association of the<\/p>\n
AC”\n<\/p>\n
equitable mortgage of Schedule ‘A’ property. ‘1’ he second<\/p>\n
defendant also offered to equitably mortgage <\/p>\n
schedule immovable properties as security:.:”for.c::the1 V’<\/p>\n
proposed loan and deposited (‘thew   <\/p>\n
documents of title relating to _schedu__le’*.’_C’  <\/p>\n
plaintiff to create equitable niortgage
\nproperties. The  obtained the
\nscrutiny report of p the  a
\nloan of ?.     defendant on
\nthe co–obligatiitinjpf\ufb01pfhpof  defendant and on the<\/p>\n
guarantee A”3%*~<i  _ ohnmequitable mortgage of<\/p>\n
schedule "A' and "C" "i_r1:moy'able properties as security for<\/p>\n
_ the  loan onithe condition that the defendants shall<\/p>\n
   loan with interest at the rate of 22% pa.<\/p>\n
'bimonthly. The defendants shall repay the<\/p>\n
–V loan”‘withiri  month and to pay the incidental charges<\/p>\n
 fffrelatingfffto the loan as per the rules of business of the<\/p>\n
~  piaintirr.\n<\/p>\n
\/5%<\/p>\n
4. On 13-51997, the plaintiff disbursed the loaiafof<\/p>\n
Rs.10.00 lakhs by means of Cheque <\/p>\n
favour of the first defendant on the Corporatio.,n’E_San}r.,’ <\/p>\n
Kundapur. On the said date,    J <\/p>\n
executed a receipt for having receiy-e_d’\u00bb–the said: ‘cheVque.V”<\/p>\n
and executed an On Demand f5i=o_xn;issoryi.l\\:Iote iniifayour
\nof the plaintiff, promi’s.iAn’g   saidlloan with
\ninterest at 22% pa   on demand<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff,  thirdl  vasfguarantor to the<\/p>\n
said loan   tlettei’ ‘of guarantee dated<\/p>\n
l3–5– 1997:  is a continuing guarantee<\/p>\n
co–extensiy”e..withithes liability of defendants 1 and 2.<\/p>\n
herldefendlants 2 deposited ‘B’ and ‘D’ schedule<\/p>\n
  favour of the plaintiff with an intent to<\/p>\n
create  mortgage as security of the said loan.<\/p>\n
 Qn 13:.57\u00bb1997, the first defendant also executed a letter<\/p>\n
v.”Vf-.Aevidencing the deposit of ‘B’ schedule title deed with the<\/p>\n
if   .._.plaintiff. However, the defendants failed to repay the<\/p>\n
cheque and demanded payment of amount covered<\/p>\n
the said cheque by means of registered notice<\/p>\n
19-3-1999. Inspite of the same, the defendants’faiioed:'”‘tofh’_”‘ ‘<\/p>\n
pay the said amount. T he plaintiff has   it<\/p>\n
Complainant against the first defe\u00e9ndiant  <\/p>\n
138 of the Negotiable Instruin-ents   the
\nJudicial Magistrate     the
\nsame is pending’ In  had filed a
\nsuit for recoveij\u00e9ri fiinount.\n<\/p>\n
5. The suit’iWaVs:V’3’originai1y  on the \ufb01le of the Civil<\/p>\n
Judge ($r-.I4)’n.]CatVtidu15–i_:’:i1i””O.S.NO.134\/1999. In View<\/p>\n
_ of .,fg\u00a7)’rmation Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.] Court at<\/p>\n
  said suit was transferred to the court of<\/p>\n
{Sr.Dn.) Kundapura and renumbered as<\/p>\n
; o.s;1\\;oi–[i00\/1999.\n<\/p>\n
  In pursuance to the notice issued by the Civil<\/p>\n
it   .,,_.-Jiudge (Sr.Dn.], Kundapura. the first defendant entered<\/p>\n
5*<\/p>\n
E0<\/p>\n
and “C” schedule properties as security on equitable
\nmortgage in favour of the plaintiff as security of the said<\/p>\n
loan. He has also denied the rate of interest ofj22%<\/p>\n
p.a. According to the first defendant he has:r*’agreed”.j’t;o’ <\/p>\n
repay the loan with 12% p.a. and signledgv<\/p>\n
Demand Promissory Note with :the:.Coj:-obligant’*of_:the<\/p>\n
second defendant 81 on gua\u00bbranteeV”of the  <\/p>\n
The first defendant has  alleged._TthatVV}he has
\nrepaid the major port’i.on pf tl:ie.l’.loa3&~.rg;,prroWed, Which<\/p>\n
has not been proper1y….,U\/’;e_ductedip_towards”. the principal<\/p>\n
amourit. _”lfhe:I_-plgglntiff:intentionally kept the amounts
\npaid by ‘the defevnd’aAnt_4linipgllallllsuspense account, which is<\/p>\n
contigfaryg to it i:2u_siness rules. Though the defendant<\/p>\n
 “the plaintiff many a times to rectify the<\/p>\n
Al”a.noI11alie;3.,.,n__th’e”plaintiff did not heed to the request of<\/p>\n
thehdefendalnt. In View of that the defendant has<\/p>\n
Iisustained heavy loss due to the irregular adjustment of<\/p>\n
.’  the’ payment of loan amount. In View of the irregular<\/p>\n
it Wrnaintaining of the account, he has given instruction to<\/p>\n
A\/v<\/p>\n
 {V} ~<\/p>\n
Whether plaintiff proves that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is a Company under the<\/p>\n
Companies Act, 1956?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the Karnataka Money  .\n<\/p>\n
and Pawn Broker’s Act is a  *  _
\ninstituting this suit ‘K_ai1d’ whether, ” <\/p>\n
plaintiff proves -_Dth_at rplaintiff  <\/p>\n
exempted from ____io’bta-i.ning” frnonegy
\nlender’s license by the.__Government”fof<\/p>\n
Karnataka’?  V<\/p>\n
 the  that the<\/p>\n
ffirst. ‘:”o1qef\u00e9i1d\u00e9t1it rj”equit\u00a7ab1y mortgaged<\/p>\n
s  ‘schedule immovable<\/p>\n
 second respondent<\/p>\n
e’q1ii”taE:ly”v1nortgaged the schedule ‘C’<\/p>\n
.__imIn’ova_hle property as security for the<\/p>\n
 suit loan?\n<\/p>\n
‘To what rate of interest, the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
entitled to?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the defendants prove that the
\nplaintiff has not given deduction to the<\/p>\n
\/5\/<\/p>\n
:3
\nmoney paid by them in the loan<\/p>\n
amotint. _\n<\/p>\n
(vii) Whether defendants prove that <\/p>\n
frame of the suit is not proper’?\n<\/p>\n
[viii] What decree or order’?\n<\/p>\n
8. In order to substantiate  of -itlie: <\/p>\n
an Officer for the plaintiff Con_1pany–.or1e Vasogdeira   r<\/p>\n
was examined as P.W. 1 and lgetillmarked.thev-ldolonments
\nas Ex.P.l to EX.P.46. he first  Prithxriraj Jain<\/p>\n
examined ._l’1in*1seIf__’asT”DVQ\\l’J.i -and no documents were<\/p>\n
marked  of <\/p>\n
  C-ourtl\ufb02below after considering the oral and<\/p>\n
 led by the parties held issue<\/p>\n
Nos..al,   in the affirmative. With regard to issue<\/p>\n
 i’tv.V__has been held that the plajntiff–Company is<\/p>\n
 eferxemjoted from obtaining money lender license and<\/p>\n
if  gotfovision of Money Lenders Act has no application to<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
16<\/span>
\ncounsel further alleges that the periodical repayments<\/p>\n
made by the appellant has not been credited to the “loan<\/p>\n
account and kept the same in the suspense…aecot1;nt’<\/p>\n
and not properly maintained the ledgerpyaceount land<\/p>\n
hence, appellants are not liable <\/p>\n
These aspects of the rnatterhas notbeen considered;  <\/p>\n
the court below and sough’t.:_V’dfor  aside the
\njudgment and decree;::4_.pass.ed below by<\/p>\n
allowing this appeal.   A<\/p>\n
12.    _’ Sri.K.N.PraVeen Kuinar.\n<\/p>\n
learned  for the first respondent<\/p>\n
contended that judgnient and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
 veourlt “is in accordance with law and the rate of<\/p>\n
 by the first respondent is also in<\/p>\n
it _ acco’rdance*vyith the agreed rate of interest. Further the<\/p>\n
ie,.:f:irsrt_i”espondent is a Company incorporated under the<\/p>\n
.’  Conipanies Act and also obtained exemption under the<\/p>\n
 “Money Lenders Act. Hence, they are competent to do<\/p>\n
\/5”\n<\/p>\n
the money lending business. Further eontendedthat<\/p>\n
the appellants having obtained the loan <\/p>\n
agreed to pay interest at 22\u00b0\/op.a. compounded’  K <\/p>\n
and utilised the amount for their <\/p>\n
down and contend that the \ufb01rstrespondent:  <\/p>\n
power to do the money lendifigibupsinessly: ‘ll’he’i\u00a7eonduct
\nof the appellants  “hands of
\nthis Hon’ble Court   of the
\nappeal. H       <\/p>\n
13.  the arguments
\naddressedp\u00e9lby and oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence. led by.  parties.\n<\/p>\n
 dispute that the appellants had availed<\/p>\n
 _ thel””‘l.oan.fr’:om the first respondent–Company for the<\/p>\n
eirnproveinent of their Cashew nut business. The<\/p>\n
  appe’llants are fully aware of the business rules of the<\/p>\n
 “first respondent–Con1pai1y after executing necessary<\/p>\n
\/5′<\/p>\n
18<\/span>
\ndocuments and equitable mortgage of schedule ‘A’ and
\n‘C’ properties as security for the said loan and obtained<\/p>\n
loan. Since, the appellants have failed to repay-.__>the<\/p>\n
entire loan amount, the first respondent has <\/p>\n
for recovery of the balance amount. Infactfthe   <\/p>\n
for Rs.-4.50.000\/~ issued by the <\/p>\n
dishonoured. In view of that, theV._\ufb01i’st <\/p>\n
filed a suit for recovery of th’ef.V:a1nount’;._V_  of
\nthe appellants to   that the first
\nrespondent is a Company to do the<\/p>\n
money lenders 1;v>_i.i.sir1e\/iSl’3\u00bb,__ .The plaint has not been<\/p>\n
properly’ signeddi  authorised person and<\/p>\n
repayrr1ents.Vrr1ade’1have not been credited to the loan<\/p>\n
account.  of ” \u00ab <\/p>\n
 before the court below in order to<\/p>\n
prove their “case, examined the Officer of the company<\/p>\n
 : P.W.I in his evidence deposed that the<\/p>\n
.’  Ramakrishna Karab was the Manager of the plaintiff-<\/p>\n
 “Corzzpany at the time of filing of the suit and he was<\/p>\n
,5”\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span>
\nholding Fower of Attorney to file a suit. The Manager of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff–Company signed and veri\ufb01ed the suit~.”‘—_pI-Ie<\/p>\n
is a competent person to represent 3<\/p>\n
Company. The Fower of Attorney executedp’linRfav’ot;1tl  K V’ <\/p>\n
Ramakrsihna Karab was produeeld  <\/p>\n
P.W.1 deposed that the, plajn’tiff’r– is <\/p>\n
incorporated under the Corfrpanies leper the
\nMemorandum of   jrgovmpany,Rifulanybody
\nwanted to become thepppsharehpolder’;-\u00bbVthieyl-have to make<\/p>\n
necessary  to e_nro’ll——~’ themselves as<\/p>\n
Preferential _  depositing the share
\nvalue. tinly.the-_share?’ho’lders of the plaintiff–Company<\/p>\n
are entitled lfory loan. Other private parties are not<\/p>\n
  loan. Further, the State Government by<\/p>\n
 99-1992 exempted the plaintiff-\n<\/p>\n
Conipany from obtaining the Money Lenders’ License.<\/p>\n
 said noti\ufb01cation was also produced as Ex.P.2.<\/p>\n
.l   also deposed that for the purpose of taking loan,<\/p>\n
T  “the loanee has to :%\/e’necessary security as per the<\/p>\n
20<\/span>
\nrules of the plaintiff–Company. In the instant case. the<\/p>\n
defendants I and 2 had executed mortgage deed–._as<\/p>\n
security for the loan amount. Further regardi.n_g\u00a7,f <\/p>\n
interest, the first defendant himself has <\/p>\n
interest at the rate of 22% per  <\/p>\n
monthly. Further. as per  l\ufb01fhelhas  the\ufb02O11 <\/p>\n
Demand Promissory Note.     oral
\nevidence deposed thaihthe  two
\ncheques in favour of  towards the
\narrears of   $4,830,000\/–\n<\/p>\n
was   .noln”–Vavailabi1ity of the fund.
\nThe statement also made known to the<\/p>\n
defendants. .2  ._l\\\/Ionthlyv installments paid by the<\/p>\n
  been taken to the account. The Ledger<\/p>\n
l’extractals;’o””been produced before the court to show<\/p>\n
that”  account has been maintained by the<\/p>\n
.,.:plain_tiff’at Ex.P.29. The said P.W.l was cross–examined<\/p>\n
.2  the learned counsel for the first defendant. In the<\/p>\n
 “cross–examination nothing contrary was elicited from<\/p>\n
21<\/span>
\nP.W. 1. The suggestion made by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the first defendant that the rate of interest at 15%.gfor<\/p>\n
the loan amount was denied by the P.W.1 V.<\/p>\n
that agreed rate is 22% p.a.<\/p>\n
16. The first defendant e::aminded””himse1–i7as <\/p>\n
and deposed that for the  of of
\nCashew nut businessigghe  \u20ac10.00
\niakhs from the pglajntitfand  repaid the
\nsaid a.1noun_t.3__:     he had agreed
\nto   rate of 22% p.a. and
\nnot at  .  and he has repaid<\/p>\n
?.114,;\u00a35,342}–‘-as”on the date of \ufb01ling of the suit. In<\/p>\n
 irregularity in maintaining the account, the<\/p>\n
 the first defendant was not taken into<\/p>\n
V . accdo’un*t’:ar;d’ also contended that they have not executed<\/p>\n
 \u00ab,Vany.__ mortgaged deeds. However, in the cross\u00bb<\/p>\n
–  examination he has admitted that the properties have<\/p>\n
hheen mortgaged as per Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11. On<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
Demand Promissory Note has been marked as EX.P.15.<\/p>\n
in the evidence he has deposed that he is not d1.:’e._pfor<\/p>\n
. 1′<\/p>\n
any money to the plaintiff–Company. 3<\/p>\n
defendant has not produced any documents’-iin  p  <\/p>\n
of his case.\n<\/p>\n
17. The first defendant  dispiitedetlheafact that<\/p>\n
he has availed the   lalthslf for the
\nimprovement of’ his cashew   and he has<\/p>\n
admitted the f  “of  ‘1’n.o=rtgage deeds as
\nsecuriigy to _’thle_–vloan.yaInoi;nt. _’ Further, he has admitted
\nto repaygflthel   22% interest per annum<\/p>\n
con1}po’unded  ll Having accepted the loan with<\/p>\n
V:’theKucondition_vmentioned therein, it is not open to the<\/p>\n
tovcontend that the plaintiff is a Company<\/p>\n
and’ it cannot do the Money Lender’s business without<\/p>\n
 obrtaining permission from the State Government. With<\/p>\n
—  ‘Ai”e,\u20acglard to the rate of interest also the first defendant<\/p>\n
\/iw<\/p>\n
denied that he has agreed to pay the interest in simple<\/p>\n
interest of 22% p.a.<\/p>\n
18. The evidence led by the paifties is Vefy” t’_hat~_ if”<\/p>\n
the defendants had agreed to re’payf_”‘ttie <\/p>\n
with 22% p.a. compounded”tnenVthly'”Ixtithin’\u00bb:VaA”\u00a7je’riod of ” it<\/p>\n
six months. Since the defen.dVa’nts’\u00ab._faiIed”to_re%>ay the
\nloan amount and   legal notice
\nwas issued bytlie   of the
\nloan. The two  defendant for
\nRs.50,0.0o–\/-,uf;a;\u00a7i\u00a3i;’\u00a5\u00a2:.Rs.4f.\u00bb5o,o0ec,L  out of which, the
\nchequelvlof  by the Banker and<\/p>\n
the chequx\ufb01gjf  was dishonoured on the<\/p>\n
‘”‘~,.gFO11iI:ld\u00a7Q.f .non–availability of funds in the account.<\/p>\n
  was also made available to the<\/p>\n
 :”:l’he defendants have veri\ufb01ed the loan<\/p>\n
  account.\n<\/p>\n
\u00e9w<\/p>\n
24<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
19. The only grievance appears to be that rate of<\/p>\n
interest with compounded monthly. At the tirrgie-tgof<\/p>\n
taking the loan. having agreed for the it\/fiA1=e’..g<\/p>\n
defendants cannot turn down and say thatthe samiedits’  <\/p>\n
arbitrary. The Hon’b1e Suprerne;;Co’urt;   ‘<\/p>\n
reported in 2001 SAR (CIVIL) 390’~–in=the  I11-{E <\/p>\n
CENTRAL BANK or 1NnIA<:'\ufb01r\/s  "AND
\nOTHERS, at paragraph._':50  judgrrient it is
\ncleariy held that in  of  of Banking
\nRegulations   has been
\ntaken A' transaction between the
\nBanking on the ground that the<\/p>\n
rate gotingterestcharged is excessive and the provision<\/p>\n
 has_gibee"'11.Ag givegn overriding effect over the Usury Loan<\/p>\n
 Eiiizeince, it is clear that the Court cannot<\/p>\n
V . reo}:ien 'the""rate of interest. Moreover, the defendant<\/p>\n
  A\u00e9\u00e9thrieither  the written statement nor in the oral evidence<\/p>\n
–‘ their little finger about the interest charged<\/p>\n
”  the piaintiff\u00ab~Co1npany except stating that defendants<\/p>\n
\/{M<\/p>\n
Pa)
\n‘J1<\/p>\n
have only agreed to pay interest at 12% p.a. But,-‘–._the<\/p>\n
documents produced and relied upon by  V.<\/p>\n
company clearly reveals that the defendants  <\/p>\n
to pay interest at 22% p.a. with rriorlilthlylre’sts..llV:l5urther.’V7<\/p>\n
D.W.1 in his evidence has admitted that  J\/’igreedi it<\/p>\n
to pay simple interest at the ‘of 2\u00e9%”   the
\ndefendants are fully aware   The
\ncourt below after considering’   ldocurnentary
\nevidence led by  \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
20.   or illegality in the<\/p>\n
preliminaryVr;lecre’e’V._  by the court below. The<\/p>\n
 passed bylt 1e–\u00abcourt below is only a preliminary<\/p>\n
  will get a chance to agitate the<\/p>\n
matter onceliazgain in the Final Decree Proceedings.<\/p>\n
Vhli”‘.,.4.4_l:1ence,  find that the appellants have not made out<\/p>\n
  “a”1”;.y_pc.\u00e9_’.se to interfere with the well–considered order<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1267″ DAY OF’ OC’FOBER’:2()E1:’OL.. PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUs’r1c:E”K; 1,.1\\r;;A1\\1}_.rD’i\\3:A.\ufb01’\u00a7Ii’.~ AND ‘r1-:E HONBLE MRE.J’U:STICE. E RFA NO.~.1_ 147109 “2Do&j3. ._(1\\\/\u00a3()’Ei\\–I)”‘ BETWEEN: 1. Sri.\u00a5)Iit}i’V\u00abit?r1jLJ;(1iI1\u00a7 S \/ 0,8;-Chaf\ufb01dagrgra S_het_tyfJa1n, […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200161","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010 - 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\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-21T17:07:15+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\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-21T17:07:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2383,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-21T17:07:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010 - 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\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-21T17:07:15+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\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-21T17:07:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":2383,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010","name":"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-21T17:07:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prithviraj-jain-vs-manipal-sowbhagya-nidhi-ltd-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prithviraj Jain vs Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd on 26 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/200161","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=200161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}