{"id":208462,"date":"2002-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002"},"modified":"2016-06-10T14:30:35","modified_gmt":"2016-06-10T09:00:35","slug":"anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 733<\/div>\n
Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  A.K. Sikri, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. By  means  of  this  suit,  the  plaintiff  is
\n           seeking  to  recover a sum of Rs.15,37,857.18p  against
\n           the defendant-State Bank of Patiala.  The circumstances
\n           which  led the plaintiff to file this suit against  the
\n           defendant,  as can be gathered from the plaint, are  as
\n           under:\n<\/p>\n
                      That   the  plaintiff  is  owner\/landlord   of
\n           premises  No.C-31,  C-32, Connaught Place,  New  Delhi.
\n           The  plaintiff had let out the second floor of C-31 and
\n           C-32  Connaught Place New Delhi having a total  covered
\n           area  of 2740 sq.ft.  to the defendant initially for  a
\n           period  of five years w.e.f.  1.9.1980 with one renewal
\n           option for five years at 10% increase in the rent.\n<\/p>\n
 S.No.3026\/91:\n<\/p>\n
            That similarly, the plaintiff also let out the
\n           first  floor of C-32, Connaught Place, New Delhi having
\n           an area of 1950 sq.ft to the defendant w.e.f.  8.4.1981
\n           for  five  years  with  one   renewal  option  at   10%
\n           enhancement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     That  at the time of letting the second  floor
\n           of  C-31  and C-32, as described above,  the  defendant
\n           vide letter dated 29.9.1980, had agreed to grant to the
\n           plaintiff  an  overdraft  facility of  Rs.15  lakhs  at
\n           interest rate of 14% p.a.  <\/p>\n
                     Similarly  at the time of letting first  floor
\n           C-32,  the defendant vide letter dated 10.3.1981 agreed
\n           to  grant to the plaintiff overdraft facility of  Rs.15
\n           lakhs at interest rate of 15% p.a.  plus interest tax.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     The plaintiff had been enjoying both limits of
\n           Rs.15 lakhs each.  Later on the defendant bank withdrew
\n           the first overdraft of Rs.15 lakhs which was granted at
\n           the  time of letting out second floor of C-31 and C-32,
\n           Connaught Place, New Delhi and the plaintiff thereafter
\n           enjoyed  only one facility of overdraft limit of  Rs.15
\n           lakhs   against  letting  out   first  floor  of  C-32,
\n           Connaught  Place,  New Delhi.  This was enjoyed by  the
\n           plaintiff  at  defendant’s Branch Office, Hauz Khas  as
\n           the  premises which were let out by the plaintiff  were
\n           being  used by the defendant as their Zonal office.  It
\n           is  further  alleged in the plaint that in  respect  of
\n           aforesaid  facilities, the plaintiff was to be  charged
\n           interest  at the rate of 14% and 15% with interest tax,
\n           respectively per annum at simple rate.  However, it was
\n           subsequently  revealed  that  the  defendant  bank  was
\n           unauthorisedly  charging interest at the rate of  16.5%
\n           with  quarterly rests for some time and at the rate  of
\n           17.5%  with  quarterly  rests  at that  times  and  had
\n           subsequently  started charging the interest at the rate
\n           of 19% per annum with quarterly rests.  In this way the
\n           defendant  overcharged  a sum of Rs.15,37,857.18  which
\n           was  against  the terms of letter dated  29.9.1980  and
\n           10.3.1981 in pursuance of which this overdraft facility
\n           was  granted to the plaintiff.  It is because for  this
\n           reason  the present suit had been filed for recovery of
\n           overcharged interest in these two accounts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.                     The  defendant  bank filed  written  statement
\n           contesting  the  suit  alleging that the suit  was  not
\n           maintainable  and was merely an abuse of the process of
\n           law as the plaintiff had filed Suit for vacation of the
\n           premises in question against the defendant.  The plaint
\n           did  not  disclose  any cause of action  and  that  the
\n           interest  had  been  charged  in  accordance  with  the
\n           Agreement and in accordance with the documents executed
\n           by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
                     The  plaintiff  in its application  reiterated
\n           the stand taken in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
 3.                    On  the  basis  of  the  pleadings,  following
\n           issues were framed:\n<\/p>\n
                     1.   Whether  the  suit  of the  plaintiff  as
\n                         framed  is not maintainable as alleged in
\n                         paras   1   to  4  of   the   preliminary
\n                         objections  of  the   written  statement?
\n                         OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     2.   Whether the suit of the plaintiff is
\n                         barred by limitation? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     3.   Whether  the plaint does not disclose any
\n                         cause of action?  OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     4.   Whether  the plaintiff is entitled to the
\n                         amount claimed?  OPP.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     5.   Relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.                     The  matter  was  set  down  for  trial.   The
\n           plaintiff examined one witness, namely, Mr.Pankaj Nakra
\n           on   18.3.1996   and  closed   its  evidence   in   the
\n           affirmative.   The case was listed on 19.3.1996 also on
\n           which  date defendant was required to produce  witness.
\n           However,  counsel  for  the defendant requested  for  a
\n           short   adjournment  and  the   case  was   accordingly
\n           adjourned  to  16.5.1996 for defendant’s evidence.   On
\n           that  date  the evidence could not be recorded and  the
\n           case was adjourned to 17.7.1996.  On 17.7.1996 evidence
\n           of  defendant  started  with statement  of  Mr.Rajendra
\n           Singhla,   Assistant   Manager   of   defendant   bank.
\n           Examination-in-Chief was partly recorded where after the
\n           matter was adjourned.  However, the matter was derailed
\n           on  defendant’s  filing  application  (IA.231\/97  under
\n           Order  XIII Rule 2 CPC) for permission to file  certain
\n           documents.   It was allowed by order dated 6.1.1999 and
\n           the matter was fixed for fresh evidence, if any, of the
\n           plaintiff.   By  order dated 3.2.2000 matter was  fixed
\n           for  trial on 22nd & 23rd August,2001.  When the matter
\n           was  listed before the Joint Registrar for scrutiny the
\n           plaintiff  submitted that its evidence has already been
\n           concluded.   The defendant was accordingly directed  to
\n           file  its list of witnesses within six weeks and it was
\n           directed that he would produce its witness on the dates
\n           fixed  for trial.  However, neither on 22.8.2001 nor on
\n           23.8.2001 defendant appeared or produced its witnesses.
\n           Right to lead evidence of the defendant was, therefore,
\n           ordered  to  be  closed and matter was directed  to  be
\n           listed  in  the category of “Finals” on  3.9.2001.   It
\n           remained  in the cause list of `Finals’ from  3.9.2001.
\n           However,  nobody  appeared on behalf of the  defendant.
\n           The  arguments  were  heard on  2nd  November,2001  and
\n           thereafter on 20.11.2001 and the judgment was reserved.
\n           Thereafter  it  was listed for directions from time  to
\n           time.  In none of these dates the defendant appeared.\n<\/p>\n
 5.                  The  sequence  of  the   events  as  disclosed
\n           aforesaid  would  amply demonstrate that the  defendant
\n           has  not  led  any  evidence   or  appeared  from  22nd
\n           August,2001.\n<\/p>\n
    6.               In  the  statement of Mr.Pankaj Nakra who  was
\n           examined  as  PW-1 on behalf of the plaintiff,  he  has
\n           proved  on  record the certified copy of the form A  as
\n           Ex.PW-1\/1  evidencing the registration of plaintiff  as
\n           partnership  firm which includes Mr.Ashok Sarin who has
\n           signed  the present plaint and signed the  vakalatnama.
\n           He  has also deposed to the effect that defendant  bank
\n           had  advanced a loan of Rs.15 lakhs for each of the two
\n           premises  C-31 and C-32, Connaught Place, New Delhi  at
\n           the  time of letting out these premises to the bank for
\n           which  no  formal  agreement was executed  between  the
\n           parties  and only letters dated 29.9.1980 and 10.3.1981
\n           were  exchanged  which are Ex-.P-1 and Ex.P-2.  He  has
\n           further  deposed to the effect that in violation of the
\n           Agreement  regarding  interest  as mentioned  in  these
\n           letters the defendant bank charged interest at the rate
\n           of  16.75%  to 19% with quarterly rests which  was  not
\n           proper  and  the  suit was filed for  recovery  of  the
\n           excess  interest.   Details of the excess interest  are
\n           given  in Annexure-A to the plaint.  He has also stated
\n           that  the  plaintiff  demanded the bank to  refund  the
\n           excess interest by letters Ex.PW-1\/2 and Ex.PW-1\/3.  In
\n           cross-examination  he has stated that the loan  granted
\n           by the bank was against letting out of the premises and
\n           not  an  overdraft.   Some  blank  documents  were  got
\n           signed.   It was for the first time in the end of  1990
\n           when  the plaintiff got the balance reconciled that  it
\n           realised  that bank was charging more interest than the
\n           agreed rate.  He further stated that loan was repaid in
\n           1991.   He did not recollect if the loan was only for a
\n           period  of  one  year.  He denied the  suggestion  that
\n           fresh  loan\/overdraft  limit  was   sanctioned  to  the
\n           plaintiff  in 1989.  He also denied the suggestion that
\n           interest  had been charged according to the  Agreement.
\n           He  admitted that the balance confirmation letter dated
\n           July  6,1989 had been signed by the plaintiff and  also
\n           letters  dated  July 6,1989 and June 18,1992 which  had
\n           been signed by the plaintiff were marked as Ex.PW-1\/X-1
\n           to  Ex.PW-1\/X-3.   He also admitted that the  plaintiff
\n           was  receiving the statement of account regularly  from
\n           the  bank.  He also denied the suggestion that  letters
\n           Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were never acted upon.\n<\/p>\n
      7.             The  issues  framed  in  the suit  are  to  be
\n           decided  on  the  basis of the aforesaid  evidence  and
\n           documents proved on record.  My findings thereon are as
\n           under:\n<\/p>\n
            Issue No.2.\n<\/p>\n
                     The  overdraft facilities were granted to  the
\n           plaintiff  by  the defendant bank in the year  1980-81.
\n           It  is  admitted by PW-1 in cross-examination that  the
\n           plaintiff  has  been  receiving  statement  of  account
\n           regularly.   In this statement of account debit entries
\n           of the interest were made which were not objected to by
\n           the  plaintiff  at  that  point   of  time.   Thus,  if
\n           according  to  the  plaintiff  such  debit  entries  in
\n           respect  of  interest charged were at higher rate  than
\n           agreed upon, the cause of action arose in favor of the
\n           plaintiff  when the respective debit entries were  made
\n           and  the suit could be filed within three years of  the
\n           said entries.  In this suit which is filed on 25.9.1991
\n           the  plaintiff  could challenge the debit entries  made
\n           only  for last three years from the date of filing  the
\n           said  suit  i.e.   w.e.f.    26.9.88.   This  suit  for
\n           recovery   of  alleged  overcharged   interest  up   to
\n           25.9.1988 has thus become time barred.\n<\/p>\n
         8.          However,  learned  counsel for  the  plaintiff
\n           tried  to  urge that it was a mutual and  open  current
\n           account.   He  tried to demonstrate that  statement  of
\n           account  would amply demonstrate that the said  account
\n           showed   debit  balance  as   also  credit  balance  on
\n           different  occasions.   On  the basis of this  fact  he
\n           sought  to argue that the suit would be within time  as
\n           Article-1  of the Limitation Act would apply in such  a
\n           situation.\n<\/p>\n
            9.       I am afraid this contention of the counsel for
\n           the  plaintiff  is  not tenable.   Article-1  reads  as
\n           under:\n<\/p>\n
    Discription of suit     Period of limitation    Time from which
\n                                                period begins to run
\n______________________________________________________________________\n<\/p>\n
1.  For the balance due         Three years     The close of the year
\n    on a mutual, open                           in which the last item
\n    and current account,                        admitted or proved is
\n    where there have been                       entered in the account
\n    reciprocal demands                          ;such year to be
\n    between the parties.                        computed as in the
\n                                                account.\n<\/p>\n
               10.   This  provision  would be applicable when  the
\n           suit  is  filed for the “balance due” on a mutual  open
\n           and current account.  The present suit is not filed for
\n           the balance due based on this account.  It is filed for
\n           the interest allegedly overcharged from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
                  11. It  accordingly follows that the claim in  the
\n           suit for recovery of alleged overcharged interest up to
\n           25.9.1988  is time barred and the claim for the  period
\n           26.6.1988   only   would  be   within  the  period   of
\n           limitation.  This issue is answered accordingly.
\n           Issues No.1,3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
                   12.  Issue  No.1 is based on preliminary objections
\n           1  to 4.  In these objections the defendant has alleged
\n           that   the  suit  filed  by   the  plaintiff   is   not
\n           maintainable  and is an abuse of the process of law and
\n           the  plaintiff has no right to file the suit at belated
\n           stage  and  the  interest  has   been  charged  by  the
\n           defendant  in  accordance  with the  agreement  and  in
\n           accordance  with the documents and the suit is filed to
\n           check-mate  the defendant from not claiming the  amount
\n           which  was  due on account of the limit availed by  the
\n           plaintiff.   The  points  raised in  these  preliminary
\n           objections  on this issue framed are related to  Issues
\n           No.3  and  4.   Therefore, all these issues  are  inter
\n           related and are taken up together.\n<\/p>\n
                13.     It  is  not in dispute that the plaintiff  had
\n           let  out the premise at C-31 and C-32 Connaught  Place,
\n           New   Delhi  to  the   defendant-Bank.   Letter   dated
\n           29.9.1980  Ex.P-1  lays down the stipulations on  which
\n           the  premises at C-32 as well as a portion of  building
\n           at C-31 having a total covered area of 2600 sq.ft.  was
\n           let  out  to  the defendant bank.   After  setting  the
\n           various  conditions  about letting out these  premises,
\n           para  (ix)  thereof  deals with the  loan  in  question
\n           reading as under:\n<\/p>\n
                       ix)  “You  will be disbursed six  month’s
\n                      advance  rent amounting to  Rs.1,50,000\/-
\n                      approximately which will be repaid by you
\n                      definitely within the first six months by
\n                      monthly   appropriation  of   rent.    In
\n                      addition  to  the above advance rent  you
\n                      will  be  granted  an  overdraft  to  the
\n                      extent  of  Rs.15 lakhs on the  following
\n                      terms and conditions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       a)  The above loan will carry an interest
\n                      @ 14%.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       b)    After   the     advance   rent   of
\n                      Rs.1,50,000\/-  is adjusted the loan  will
\n                      be liquidated by monthly appropriation of
\n                      entire  rent (i.e.  including the rent of
\n                      the  premises presently with us) within a
\n                      total  maximum period of 5 years interest
\n                      accrued  on  this  loan  (which  will  be
\n                      charged  at quarterly rests) will be paid
\n                      separately.   The  advance rent  will  be
\n                      adjusted  first  and then  adjustment  of
\n                      overdrafts will start.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       c)  if  feasible loan  of  Rs.15,00,000\/-
\n                      will  be secured by equitable mortgage of
\n                      the building hired to us”.    <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   14.  In  the  same  manner letter  dated  10.3.1981
\n           Ex.P-2  deals with letting out of premises at C-32  and
\n           also  stipulates  grant  of  over draft  limit  to  the
\n           plaintiff  by  the  defendant  bank  in  the  following
\n           manner:\n<\/p>\n
                        “An   overdraft  limit  of  Rs.15   lakhs
\n                      bearing  interest at the rate of 15% plus
\n                      interest tax will be granted to you”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             15.        The  aforesaid  exhibits would show that  over
\n           draft  limit  was  granted  to  the  plaintiff  by  the
\n           defendant  bank at the time of letting of the  premises
\n           on  rent  by the plaintiff to the defendant  Bank.   On
\n           this  over  draft  limit the defendant  had  agreed  to
\n           charge interest at the rate of 14% and 15% respectively
\n           plus interest tax.  In view thereof, when the terms, on
\n           which  the  over  draft   limit  was  sanctioned,  were
\n           specifically  contained  in these exhibits, it was  not
\n           open  for the bank to charge interest at more than  the
\n           specified  rate.  The facility in this case was granted
\n           at  a  fixed rate of interest.  It was not  a  variable
\n           rate dependent upon the rate prescribed by Reserve Bank
\n           of  India  from time to time.  The transaction  between
\n           the  parties is specifically governed by the terms  and
\n           conditions  contained  in  Ex.P-1 and  Ex.P-2  and  the
\n           parties  would  be  bound  by these  terms.   When  the
\n           defendant  charged more interest than permissible under
\n           the  law, the plaintiff shall have a cause of action to
\n           file  the present suit for the recovery of over charged
\n           interest.   Thus Issues 1,3 and 4 are decided in favor
\n           of the plaintiff and against the defendant-Bank.  It is
\n           held  that the plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of
\n           the overcharged interest w.e.f.  26-9-1988 as the claim
\n           for  prior period is barred by limitation.  As per  the
\n           details  given by the plaintiff, the amount overcharged
\n           by  way of interest, for this period is  Rs.261571.31p.
\n           The  plaintiff  shall  be entitled to decree  for  this
\n           amount.\n<\/p>\n
           16.        At  this stage, it may be stated that although
\n           the  defendant  has not led any evidence in support  of
\n           its  case, in the cross-examination of the  plaintiff’s
\n           witness,  three  documents  were  put to  him  and  the
\n           witness  had  admitted  those   documents  which   were
\n           exhibited  as  PW-1\/X-1 to PW-1\/X-3.  However,  it  was
\n           argued  by learned counsel for the plaintiff that these
\n           documents  do not relate to the transaction in question
\n           and  in fact these relate to another overdraft facility
\n           of  Rs.15 lakhs granted in favor of the plaintiff  for
\n           which  third party guarantee of M\/s.Anant Raj  Agencies
\n           Pvt.Ltd.   was  also given.  The submission of  learned
\n           counsel  for  the  plaintiff  appears  to  be  correct.
\n           Ex.PW-1\/X2 which is a letter dated 6.7.1989 states that
\n           on  an  application  made by the  plaintiff,  overdraft
\n           limit  of Rs.15 lakhs had been sanctioned in favor  of
\n           the  plaintiff  subject to the conditions mentioned  in
\n           the  said letter.  Therefore, these documents relate to
\n           same  overdraft  facility which was sanctioned  in  the
\n           year  1989 whereas we are dealing with the  transaction
\n           relating  to overdraft facility given to the  plaintiff
\n           in  the year 1980-1981 that too when the plaintiff  had
\n           let  out the premises No.C-31, C-32, Connaught Place to
\n           the  defendant.   It  is also mentioned in  the  letter
\n           dated 6.7.1989 (Ex.PW-1\/X2) that the equitable mortgage
\n           of  the  property “already mortgaged” with the bank  is
\n           extended  to this overdraft facility also.  This  shows
\n           that  the property was already mortgaged in respect  of
\n           previous   transaction  which  was   extended  to   the
\n           transaction  in question.  It was explained by  learned
\n           counsel for the plaintiff that the previous transaction
\n           was  the overdraft facility of 1980-81.  There  appears
\n           to  be  substance in what the learned counsel  for  the
\n           plaintiff  contends and in the absence of any  evidence
\n           in  rebuttal, I am agreeable to accept this  submission
\n           of  the learned counsel for the plaintiff.  It is clear
\n           from  this  that  the documents which were put  by  the
\n           defendant  bank  in cross-examination of the  plaintiff
\n           witness do not relate to the transaction in question.\n<\/p>\n
        17.           Issue No.5. Relief:\n<\/p>\n
                  In  view of the foregoing discussion, the suit
\n           is   decreed   in  the   sum  of   Rs.261571.31p   with
\n           proportionate  costs.   The  plaintiff  shall  also  be
\n           entitled  to interest at the rate of 9% per annum  from
\n           the  date  of  filing  of the suit  till  its  payment.
\n           Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 733 Author: A Sikri Bench: A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. By means of this suit, the plaintiff is seeking to recover a sum of Rs.15,37,857.18p against the defendant-State Bank of Patiala. The […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002 - 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\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-10T09:00:35+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-10T09:00:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2850,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002\",\"name\":\"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-10T09:00:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002 - 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\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-10T09:00:35+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-10T09:00:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002"},"wordCount":2850,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002","name":"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-10T09:00:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anant-raj-agencies-properties-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-1-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anant Raj Agencies Properties vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 February, 2002"}]},{"@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\/208462","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=208462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}