{"id":214016,"date":"2008-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-20T01:28:12","modified_gmt":"2015-06-19T19:58:12","slug":"hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Oka<\/div>\n
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2007.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    HDFC Bank Ltd.                                     .. Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n            versus\n\n    1. The State of Maharashtra.\n    2. Mr.Hari Bhaskar More.\n    3. Learned Judicial Magistrate,\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n       First Class, Pandharpur,\n       Maharashtra.                                    .. Respondents.\n                              ....\n\n    Mr.Mahesh Menon with Asha Nair, i\/b. Mahesh Menon &\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Co., for the Petitioner.\n    Mr. Surel S. Shah, for the Resopndent No.2.\n    Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.\n                          ig  ....\n\n                                       CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                       DATE : 9th September 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
    1.          The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    for     the    parties     were   heard on the    last      date.         The<\/p>\n
    Petitioner-Bank       by    filing this Petition under             Article<\/p>\n
    227     of the Constitution of India read with section                    482<\/p>\n
    of    the     Code of Criminal Procedure,        1973      (hereinafter<\/p>\n
    referred       to   as “the Code of 1973”) has challenged                 the<\/p>\n
    order       dated 14th March 2006 as well as order dated 28th<\/p>\n
    December 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
    First Class, Pandharpur.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                            : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.         According          to the case of the Petitioner, on                         an<\/p>\n
    application            made     by     the      second        Resopndent,              the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner        had       granted         loan in favour of            the       second<\/p>\n
    Respondent            for      purchasing        a     two    wheeler              bearing<\/p>\n
    registration          no.MH13-AA-0174.           According to the case of<\/p>\n
    the     Petitioner,           the    second          Respondent        executed         an<\/p>\n
    agreement              dated           16th             August           2004           of<\/p>\n
    loan-cum-hypothecation.                 A     loan     of     Rs.36,400\/-             was<\/p>\n
    advanced     by        the Petitioner to the                second       Respondent.<\/p>\n
\n\n    Apart      from        the          loan-cum-hypothecation                agreement,\n\n    according        to\n                            \n                            the     Petitioner,            the    first       Respondent\n\n    executed     a demand promissory note as well as a power of\n                           \n    attorney     in favour of the Petitioner.                      According to the\n\n    Petitioner,        defaults          were     committed          by      the       second\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Resopndent in repayment of the amount and hence, a legal<\/p>\n
    notice     was issued on 21st September 2005 to the                                second<\/p>\n
    Resopndent.            As     there was no compliance by the                       second<\/p>\n
    Resopndent,        relying          upon clause 8.2 of             the      agreement<\/p>\n
    dated     16th        August        2004,      the     Petitioner         took       over<\/p>\n
    possession of the said vehicle which was hypothecated in<\/p>\n
    its     favour        and     the said vehicle was sold to                     a    third<\/p>\n
    party for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                         : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.          An      application       was    moved         by       the         second<\/p>\n
    Respondent         before the learned Magistrate purporting                          to<\/p>\n
    be    an application under section 94 of the Code of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
    In    the    said        application,       it   is      alleged          that     the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner         took forcible possession of the two                      wheeler<\/p>\n
    without      the     consent of the second Respondent                      on     15th<\/p>\n
    February         2006.    It was alleged that the Petitioner                       had<\/p>\n
    stolen the vehicle and therefore, a complaint was lodged<\/p>\n
    in    Pandharpur Police Station and no action was taken by<\/p>\n
    the    Police.           Therefore,     a    prayer      was      made      in     the<\/p>\n
    application          to
\n                              igissue     search     warrant          against          the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner         and for a direction to hand over                    possession<\/p>\n
    of    the vehicle to the second Resopndent.                       An order         was<\/p>\n
    passed on 14th March 2006 for issuing search warrant for<\/p>\n
    production of vehicle.              The Petitioner did not appear to<\/p>\n
    contest      the     application inspite of service of                      notice.\n<\/p>\n
    By a further order dated 28th December 2006, the learned<\/p>\n
    Magistrate granted interim custody of the vehicle to the<\/p>\n
    second respondent on executing a bond of Rs.50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner<\/p>\n
    submitted that till today there is no offence registered<\/p>\n
    against the Petitioner and there was no occasion for the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                               : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    learned Magistrate to pass order of search under section<\/p>\n
    94     of     the Code of 1973 and thereafter, to direct                           that<\/p>\n
    possession          of    the vehicle shall be handed over to                       the<\/p>\n
    second        Respondent.            He    has    placed    reliance         on     the<\/p>\n
    decision           of the Apex Court in the case of Trilok                        Singh<\/p>\n
    and     others v\/s Satya Deo Tripathi [ AIR 1979 SC 850                               ].\n<\/p>\n
    He     has     also placed reliance on a decision of the                           Apex<\/p>\n
    Court        in the case of K.K.Mathai @ Babu and another                           v\/s<\/p>\n
    Kora        Bibbikutty      and another [ 1996(7) SCC 212                    ].       He<\/p>\n
    submitted that on an application under section 94 of the<\/p>\n
    Code<\/p>\n
                of 1973, the custody of the vehicle could not have<\/p>\n
    been given to the second Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The     learned         Counsel appearing for            the      second<\/p>\n
    Respondent          submitted         that a police complaint               alleging<\/p>\n
    theft        was     already filed by the second Respondent.                          He<\/p>\n
    submitted          that proceedings under section 94 of the said<\/p>\n
    Code of 1973 are also in the nature of an inquiry and at<\/p>\n
    the         conclusion          of   the     said    inquiry,        the     learned<\/p>\n
    Magistrate          had    jurisdiction           to pass    an      order        under<\/p>\n
    section        452 of the said Code of 1973 directing that the<\/p>\n
    possession          of the vehicle shall be given to the                       second<\/p>\n
    Resopndent.               He,        therefore,       submitted            that       no<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                            : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    interference was called for.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           I    have        carefully considered           the      submissions.\n<\/p>\n
    The Petitioner has purported to invoke clause 8.2 of the<\/p>\n
    loan-cum-hypothecation                agreement for taking               possession<\/p>\n
    of the vehicle in question on the ground that the second<\/p>\n
    Respondent         committed          defaults in re-payment               of      loan.<\/p>\n
\n\n    The     Petitioner        is      a Financer who         advanced          loan      for\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    purchasing         the        vehicle.    As held by the Apex Court                    in\n\n    the     case       of K.A.Mathai (supra) it cannot be said                          that\n\n    the     Petitioner\n                             \n                              had      committed an offence of                 theft       as\n\n    there     cannot         be    mens rea alleged on the part                   of     the\n                            \n    Petitioner-Company.               The Petitioner purported to act on\n\n    the     basis of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.                                 As\n\n    held     by       the    Apex     Court in      the     case       of    K.A.Mathai\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    (supra), an offence of theft could not have been alleged<\/p>\n
    against          the Petitioner.         Moreover, it can be said                   that<\/p>\n
    at     the       highest, there was a civil dispute between                          the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner         and the second Resopndent.                 It is true            that<\/p>\n
    the      Petitioner             did    not     appear      and      contest          the<\/p>\n
    application         made under section 94 of the Code of                           1973.\n<\/p>\n
    However,         that does not mean that the application                           could<\/p>\n
    have     been mechanically allowed without considering                               the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    legal     position.         In paragraph no.4 of the order                     dated<\/p>\n
    14th    March    2006, the learned Magistrate                    has      observed<\/p>\n
    thus :-\n<\/p>\n
              “As    per section 378 of the Indian Penal Code if<\/p>\n
              the property is moved out of the possession of a<\/p>\n
              person      dishonestly, without the consent of                         the<\/p>\n
              person      the    offence       is   of      theft.          In       this<\/p>\n
              particular        case     the opponent has not                 followed<\/p>\n
              the    due procedure of law while taking away                           the<\/p>\n
              vehicle
\n                         igand       from this act it can be said                    that<\/p>\n
              the    opponent        has     moved the        property         out      of<\/p>\n
              possession        of     the     applicant         with       dishonest<\/p>\n
              intention.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    7.        The    said observation appears to be erroneous as<\/p>\n
    it     is not possible to attribute any dishonest intention<\/p>\n
    to     the Petitioner-Company.           The Petitioner             purportedly<\/p>\n
    acted     on    the basis of a clause in the Agreement                         which<\/p>\n
    was     admittedly executed by the second respondent and in<\/p>\n
    fact the second respondent had taken loan under the said<\/p>\n
    Agreement.       The    order       of the      learned        Magistrate           of<\/p>\n
    issuing search warrant for production of the vehicle was<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                          : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    illegal.         Therefore, the consequential order of handing<\/p>\n
    over possession to the second Resopndent will have to be<\/p>\n
    also held as illegal.               The proceedings of an application<\/p>\n
    under section 94 of the Code of 1973 cannot be termed as<\/p>\n
    an     inquiry     referred to in section 452 of the                     Code      of<\/p>\n
    1973     as the inquiry or trial contemplated under section<\/p>\n
    452      is      completely         different      which        involves           an<\/p>\n
    adjudication           on     the   allegation of      commission           of     an<\/p>\n
    offence.\n<\/p>\n
    8.<\/p>\n
               In the circumstances, the Petition must succeed.\n<\/p>\n
    Accordingly,           rule    is made absolute in terms of                 prayer<\/p>\n
    clause     (b).         If the order dated 28th December 2006                      is<\/p>\n
    already        acted        upon, the second Respondent will                return<\/p>\n
    the     said     vehicle to the Petitioner within a period                         of<\/p>\n
    eight weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
    9.         It     is made clear that no adjudication has                        been<\/p>\n
    made on the rights of the parties as regards the vehicle<\/p>\n
    in     dispute and all contentions as regards rights of the<\/p>\n
    parties        on merits are expressly kept open.                  This       order<\/p>\n
    will     not     prevent        the second      respondent        from      filing<\/p>\n
    appropriate        proceedings for claiming the possession                         of<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>
\n                     : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
                            ( A.S.Oka,J.)<\/p>\n
                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:05 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008 Bench: A.S. Oka IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2007. HDFC Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Mr.Hari Bhaskar More. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First […]<\/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-214016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008 - 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\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-19T19:58:12+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-19T19:58:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1093,\"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\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-19T19:58:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008 - 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\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-19T19:58:12+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-19T19:58:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008"},"wordCount":1093,"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\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008","name":"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-19T19:58:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hdfc-bank-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/214016","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=214016"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214016\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}