{"id":209529,"date":"2009-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-08T22:09:36","modified_gmt":"2015-06-08T16:39:36","slug":"sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: J. H. Bhatia<\/div>\n
                           1\n\n\n       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2088 OF 2008\n\n     1.Sanjay Hunduroa Warake\n       Age 34 yrs., Occ. Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n       Residing at 37, Nale Colony,\n       Kalaamba Road, Kolhapur.\n     2.Shri Murlidhar dattatraya Killedar,\n       Age 44 yrs., Occ.Agrigulture,\n       Residing at Majare Kasarwada,\n\n\n\n\n                         \n       Tal. Radhanagari,\n       Dist. Kolhapur.\n                \n     3.Shri Hinduroa Marutroa Warake,\n       Age 60 Yrs., Occ. --do--\n       Residing at 37, Nale Colony,\n               \n       Kallamba Road, Kolhapur\n     4.Anandroa Mahadev Warake,\n       Dead through his legal heirs,\n      \n\n       4-A Smt.Bharati Anandroa Warake,\n       Age 55 yrs., Occ.Household,\n   \n\n\n\n       Residing at Majare Kasarwada,\n       Tal. Radhanagari, Dist.Kolhapur\n       4-B Shri.Yuvaraj Anandroa Warake,\n       Age 35 yrs, Occ. Agriculture,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Residing at --do--\n       4-C Sou. Namrata Ajit Patil,\n       Age 35 yrs, Occ. Household,\n       Residing at --do--\n       4-D Rupali Anandroa Warake,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Age 25 yrs, Occ. Housework,\n       Residing at --do--\n       4-E Savita Anandroa Warake,\n       Age 23 yrs, Occ. Housework,\n       Residing at --do--\n       4-F Vidya Anandroa Warake,\n       Age 21 yrs, Occ. Housework,\n       Residing at do--\n     5.Shrimati Banubai Yashawant Warake,\n\n\n\n\n                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::\n                                  2\n\n        Age 50 yrs, Occ. Household,\n        Residing at do--              ...Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n        V\/s.\n    The Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd.,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    A Body Corporate constituted\n    under the Companies Act, 1913,\n    having it s head office at\n    Kurundwad and one of its\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Branch Manager and constituted\n    power of Attorney holder\n    Shri Vijaykumar Bhanusaheb\n    Yadav, Age 43 yrs.\n    Occupation : Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n    Residing at 24   A,\n    Yashwant Colony,\n    Ichalkaranji,\n    Tal. Hatkanangale,\n    Dist. Kolhapur                    ...Respondent\n                   \n                           ....\n    Mr.Siddharth R.Karpe i\/by Rupesh Nalavade, for the\n    appellantd.\n    Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar,Advocate, for respondent no.1.\n      \n\n                           ....\n   \n\n\n\n                            CORAM    : J.H.BHATIA,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                            DATE     : 8th September, 2009.\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      1.With consent of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
        parties, the appeal is taken for final hearing<\/p>\n
        and   disposal.    The   appellant       has       filed         the<\/p>\n
        compilation   of     the     oral    and         documentary<\/p>\n
        evidence.\n<\/p>\n
      2.The appeal is preferred against the judgment<\/p>\n
        and decree passed by the Vth Ad-hoc Additional<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
     District Judge, Kolhapur for recovery of money<\/p>\n
     in Spl. Suit No.60 of 1999. It is a case of<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff-respondent that it is scheduled<\/p>\n
     bank and the defendant-appellant no.1 Sanjay<\/p>\n
     had     taken       the     loan   of      Rs.3,00,000\/-                  for<\/p>\n
     purchase       of    bulldozer.         The      amount          of       the<\/p>\n
     loans was to carry interest at the rate of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     16%    p.a.     with\n                    ig         quarterly     rests.          In     case        of\n\n     failure       to     pay      installments,              the         penal\n                  \n     interest       of    1%   could    be     charged.           Defendant\n\n<\/pre>\n
     nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for repayment of<\/p>\n
     loan.         Accordingly,         defendant          nos.1          to      3<\/p>\n
     executed the necessary documents in favour of<\/p>\n
     the bank on 25th April 1990.                Defendant no.1 to<\/p>\n
     3 acknowledged the balance due on 7th January<\/p>\n
     1993     and        again     on    26th       December              1995.\n<\/p>\n
     Defendant       no.4        had    also      joined           them         in<\/p>\n
     acknowledging the liability.                  However, he died<\/p>\n
     pending the suit, therefore, his legal heirs<\/p>\n
     were brought on record.              The suit was filed on<\/p>\n
     28th December 1998.            It was contended that the<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
      period of limitation on the basis of the last<\/p>\n
      acknowledgment        had    expired        on     25th       December<\/p>\n
      1998,     when the Civil Court was closed due to<\/p>\n
      Winter vacation.           Hence the suit was filed on<\/p>\n
      28th December 1998, that is the first day after<\/p>\n
      opening of the court after Winter Vacation and<\/p>\n
      therefore the suit was             within the period of<\/p>\n
      limitation. At the time of filing of suit the<\/p>\n
      loan    of    Rs.    5,72,156\/-        was       due        from        the<\/p>\n
      defendants.        The   charge       was     also        crated          on<\/p>\n
      certain      agricultural        properties           bearing           gut<\/p>\n
      nos.206, 249, 541 and 254 of village Kasarwada<\/p>\n
      belonging to defendant no.1. Defendant no.5<\/p>\n
      had purchased the land gut no. 206 from the<\/p>\n
      defendant no.1 in spite of the knowledge of<\/p>\n
      the charge on the said property.\n<\/p>\n
     3.Defendant no.1 contested the suit by filing<\/p>\n
      written statement. He denied to have made any<\/p>\n
      request      for    loan    or   to    have         executed            any<\/p>\n
      document.      He also contended that the suit is<\/p>\n
      barred by limitation.             It was contended that<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
       the     plaintiff         is        a       co-operative                   bank<\/p>\n
       registered       under          Maharashtra                  Cooperative<\/p>\n
       Societies      Act    and      defendant            no.1        is     not       a<\/p>\n
       shareholder          of     the         plaintiff              bank          and<\/p>\n
       therefore without proper notice under section<\/p>\n
       164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society<\/p>\n
       Act, the suit could not be filed.\n<\/p>\n
     4.On the basis of the pleadings, several issues<\/p>\n
       are framed by the trial court at exhibit 16.\n<\/p>\n
       After   hearing       the      parties,           the      trial         court<\/p>\n
       held that defendant no.1 had taken the loan<\/p>\n
       and    defendant      nos.2        &    3    had       guaranteed              to<\/p>\n
       repay the same.             The trial court also found<\/p>\n
       that    the     suit      was          within          a      period           of<\/p>\n
       limitation.      The trial court passed the decree<\/p>\n
       directing      defendant           no.1      to      3     to      pay       the<\/p>\n
       decretal amount of Rs.5,72,156\/- jointly with<\/p>\n
       a future interest of Rs.16 p.a. from the date<\/p>\n
       of    filing   of     suit     till         realization              of      the<\/p>\n
       amount.        The    said     judgment            and       decree          are<\/p>\n
       challenged in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.Heard    the    learned       counsel        for       the       parties.\n<\/p>\n
       Following       two     points       are       pressed            in       the<\/p>\n
       present    appeal.       Firstly,         as     to       whether          the<\/p>\n
       suit was barred by limitation and secondly,<\/p>\n
       whether    the    future       interest          granted           by      the<\/p>\n
       trial    court    at    the        rate    of      Rs.16         p.a.        is<\/p>\n
       justified.\n<\/p>\n
     6.The record       reveals\n                       ig             that       on      behalf           of      the\n\n       plaintiff\/appellant,                two        witnesses                 were\n                     \n<\/pre>\n
       examined to prove all the documents and the<\/p>\n
       acknowledgments          which         were           executed               by<\/p>\n
       defendant nos.1 to 3 from time to time.                                    The<\/p>\n
       witnesses      were     not    even          cross-examined                  on<\/p>\n
       behalf    of     defendants.              Defendants             did       not<\/p>\n
       enter into witnesses box to depose on oath<\/p>\n
       that    those     documents         were       not       executed            by<\/p>\n
       them.      In    view     of       this,       the       trial         court<\/p>\n
       rightly came to the conclusion that defendant<\/p>\n
       no.1     had    taken    loan        of     Rs.3,00,000\/-                  for<\/p>\n
       purchasing bulldozer and defendant nos.2 & 3<\/p>\n
       had    guaranteed       the        repayment         of      the       loan.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
     Accordingly,          they        had     executed             necessary<\/p>\n
     document in favour of the plaintiff-bank. From<\/p>\n
     the facts           and the evidence on record, it is<\/p>\n
     clear that the loan was taken on 25th April<\/p>\n
     1990 and the amount was to be repaid within<\/p>\n
     three years in             quarterly installments of Rs.<\/p>\n
\n\n     60,000\/-.       The        loan     amount         was        to       carry\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     interest       at\n                    ig    the    rate     of   16%       p.a.           If      the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     installments were not paid on the stipulated<\/p>\n
     dates, the bank could charge penal interest of<\/p>\n
     1% p.a.         The record reveals that defendant<\/p>\n
     nos.1 to 3 had acknowledged liability on 17th<\/p>\n
     April         1993      by         executing             letter              of<\/p>\n
     acknowledgment of the of debts and dues.                                     As<\/p>\n
     this acknowledgment was made before the expiry<\/p>\n
     of the three yeas from the date of loan, the<\/p>\n
     fresh period of limitation would begin to run<\/p>\n
     from    7th    January       1993.        Thereafter               on      26th<\/p>\n
     December        1995,        they       executed           letter            of<\/p>\n
     acknowledgment          of     debts       and        dues.              This<\/p>\n
     acknowledgment was also within the period of<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
       three       years,        from    earlier             date            of<\/p>\n
       acknowledgment and therefore, fresh period of<\/p>\n
       limitation would begin to run on 26th December<\/p>\n
       1995.       The period of limitation came to and<\/p>\n
       end on 26th December 1998.           The plaintiff-bank<\/p>\n
       has explained that on the last day of the<\/p>\n
       period of limitation, suit could not be filed<\/p>\n
       because, the Civil Court was closed due to<\/p>\n
       Winter Vacation and on opening of the Courts<\/p>\n
       after    vacation     immediately       on     28th       December<\/p>\n
       1998, suit was filed.             Thus, it is clearly<\/p>\n
       within limitation.\n<\/p>\n
     7.Taking      into     consideration,        the         oral         and<\/p>\n
       documentary evidence lead by the bank it is<\/p>\n
       difficult to find any fault in the findings of<\/p>\n
       that the trial court that defendant nos.1 to 3<\/p>\n
       were liable to repay the loan amount.\n<\/p>\n
     8.The next question is about the interest.                            The<\/p>\n
       trial court held that as per the agreement<\/p>\n
       between the parties, the interest was to be<\/p>\n
       paid    @   16%    p.a.    with   quarterly           rests         and<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
     accordingly, the amount claimed by the bank<\/p>\n
     was found to be Rs.5,72,156\/- at the time of<\/p>\n
     filing    the    suit.          Now    that      amount          becomes<\/p>\n
     principal for the purpose of future interest<\/p>\n
     and    therefore,         the       trial       court       has        also<\/p>\n
     granted future interest at the rate of Rs.16%<\/p>\n
     p.a.     on   the     decretal        amount.          The       learned<\/p>\n
     counsel for the appellant contends that this<\/p>\n
     rate of interest is very heavy. Taking into<\/p>\n
     consideration, the rates of interest in the<\/p>\n
     market, judicial notice can be taken that in<\/p>\n
     the    year   1994,       when      loan    was      advanced            the<\/p>\n
     interest      rates    on       deposits         and      loan         were<\/p>\n
     really high and therefore it was fixed at the<\/p>\n
     rate of       16% p.a..             The rates of interests<\/p>\n
     continued to be high up to 1999. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
     from the year 2000 and particularly from the<\/p>\n
     year     2001,      the     rates          of    interest              have<\/p>\n
     substantially come down. Prior to 2001, on the<\/p>\n
     fixed deposits the nationalized banks used to<\/p>\n
     give interest @ 10% to 11 % p.a., but now the<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
       rates have come down to about 5% to 6% p.a. On<\/p>\n
       the National Savings Certificates the interest<\/p>\n
       used to be 12% p.a. but now it has come down<\/p>\n
       to about 8% p.a. It is material to note that<\/p>\n
       the loan was taken to purchase bulldozer as an<\/p>\n
       agricultural equipment.               It is possible that<\/p>\n
       said bulldozer could not have been used by the<\/p>\n
       defendant-appellant
\n                     ig                  only         for          his           own<\/p>\n
       agricultural works and possibly he was using<\/p>\n
       it for other business also but it appears that<\/p>\n
       the    loan     was        advanced        to       purchase              the<\/p>\n
       bulldozer      as      an     agricultural                  equipment.\n<\/p>\n
       Anyhow,      taking    into       consideration,                  overall<\/p>\n
       reduction in rates of interest on loan, in my<\/p>\n
       considered opinion, the future interest could<\/p>\n
       not be more than 10% per annum.                      Therefore, to<\/p>\n
       that    extent,       the     appeal          deserves             to       be<\/p>\n
       allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     9.For    the    aforesaid       reasons,           the       appeal           is<\/p>\n
       partly allowed only in respect of the future<\/p>\n
       interest      and     it    is     hereby          directed             that<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>
\n                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
     defendant nos.1 to 3 shall jointly pay the<\/p>\n
     decretal amount     of Rs.5,72,156\/- with future<\/p>\n
     interest at the rate of Rs.10% p.a.from the<\/p>\n
     date   of   the   institution    of      the       suit        till<\/p>\n
     realization of the amount.         Remaining part of<\/p>\n
     the decree is confirmed.         Parties shall bear<\/p>\n
     their own costs in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                 (J.H.BHATIA,J.)<\/p>\n
                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009 Bench: J. H. Bhatia 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2088 OF 2008 1.Sanjay Hunduroa Warake Age 34 yrs., Occ. Business, Residing at 37, Nale Colony, Kalaamba Road, Kolhapur. 2.Shri Murlidhar […]<\/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-209529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 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\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-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=\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-08T16:39:36+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T16:39:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1315,\"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\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T16:39:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 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":"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 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\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-08T16:39:36+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T16:39:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009"},"wordCount":1315,"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\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009","name":"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T16:39:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-hunduroa-warake-vs-branch-manager-and-constituted-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjay Hunduroa Warake vs Branch Manager And Constituted on 8 September, 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\/209529","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=209529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}