{"id":222702,"date":"2006-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006"},"modified":"2018-10-08T02:34:32","modified_gmt":"2018-10-07T21:04:32","slug":"kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5005 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nKores (India) Ltd.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBank of Maharashtra & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP(C) No.18610 of 2004)<\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t \tOn 9.1.1990, M\/s Jyoti Chemicals leased out its
\nindustrial undertaking situate in the State of Andhra
\nPradesh to the appellant for a term of 11 years on an
\nannual rent of Rs. 20 lakhs.   A sum of Rs. 11 lakhs was
\npaid by the appellant as security and every year a sum of
\nRs. 1 lakh therefrom was to be adjusted towards the Rs.
\n20 lakhs payable for that year. It appears that M\/s Jyoti
\nChemicals had borrowed amounts from the Bank of
\nMaharashtra on the security of the properties and had
\nagreed to formally mortgage the properties.  On
\n14.12.1993, the Bank of Maharashtra filed Suit No. 307 of
\n1994 on the Original Side of the High Court of Bombay for
\nrecovery of the amount due to it on the basis of the loan
\ntransaction and for specific performance of the alleged
\nagreement to mortgage the properties included in
\nSchedule ‘B’ to that plaint.  It was pleaded that a
\nhypothecation had been created in respect of the
\nmachineries in favour of that Bank as far back as on
\n25.11.1982.  In that suit, the appellant was not originally
\nmade a party.  But the Bank moved an application for
\nappointment of a receiver for the properties of M\/s Jyoti
\nChemicals  situate in Thane as well as the industrial
\nundertaking situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The
\napplication under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure in regard to the industrial undertaking of which
\nthe appellant was the lessee, was rejected by the learned
\nsingle judge of that court.  The learned judge noticed that
\nthe loan was advanced by the Bank in the year 1982; that
\nthe Bank had consented to the appellant being put in
\npossession as a lessee subject to the appellant paying to
\nthe Bank a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as rent.  The court further
\nnoticed that the amount had not been paid by the
\nappellant into the Bank from the year 1982 and the suit
\nwas filed by the Bank only in the year 1993.  Also, in the
\nmean time, M\/s Jyoti Chemicals had entered into an
\narrangement with Citi Bank for the liquidation of its loan
\nby directing the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 20
\nlakhs to that Bank.  It was also stated that the Bank of
\nMaharashtra had been negligent in not having taken
\nprompt steps for recovery of the amounts and under the
\ncircumstances it was not just and convenient to appoint a
\nreceiver.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe Bank of Maharashtra filed an appeal before
\nthe Division Bench.   By an interim order dated 4.4.1996,
\nthe Division Bench appointed a receiver, the Court
\nReceiver, High Court of Bombay, for the industrial
\nundertaking.  The court also directed the receiver to
\nappoint the appellant as his agent in respect of the
\nproperty on usual terms and conditions without security.
\nThe undertaking including the machinery which was
\nalready in possession of the appellant as a lessee, was
\npermitted to be continued in the possession of the
\nappellant.  Subsequently, the Division Bench confirmed
\nthe order appointing the receiver.  It noticed the
\ncontention of the appellant that the court receiver was not
\nentitled to claim from the appellant anything more than
\nwhat the appellant was liable to pay to M\/s Jyoti
\nChemicals.  The Division Bench did not answer that
\ncontention but directed the appellant to make that
\nsubmission before the receiver and observed that the
\nreceiver was bound to take all relevant materials into
\nconsideration.  The order also directed that the appellant
\nshould continue to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs per year to
\nthe receiver who in turn would pay over the said amount
\nto Citi Bank.  The order also directed that the receiver
\nshould separately fix and collect royalty in respect of the
\nplant and machinery located in the State of Andhra
\nPradesh.  By a subsequent order, the order was modified
\nby substituting the figure of Rs. 19 lakhs per year as
\nagainst Rs. 20 lakhs per year as payable by the appellant
\nsince Rs. 1 lakh out of Rs. 20 lakhs was to be adjusted out
\nof the sum of Rs. 11 lakhs paid as security.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe receiver purported to get a valuation of the
\nplant and machinery.  The valuer suggested a valuation of
\nRs. 1,15,16,000\/- and reported that the written down
\nvalue on depreciation would be Rs. 74,44,600\/-.  It was
\nalso suggested by the valuer that 15% of the written down
\nvalue would be the quantum of royalty that ought to be
\ncollected.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tIn view of the liberty given to the appellant by
\nthe Division Bench to raise its contentions regarding the
\nliability to pay royalty and its quantum before the receiver,
\nthe appellant raised the contention that the valuer had
\ngrossly over-valued the plant and machinery  and has not
\nproperly calculated the written down value of the 20 years
\nold machinery and it was not correct to have taken 15% of
\nthe written down value as the royalty payable by the
\nappellant.  It was also contended that the obligation of the
\nlessee to M\/s Jyoti Chemicals could not be enlarged
\nmerely because a creditor had sued M\/s Jyoti Chemicals
\nand had got a receiver appointed for the properties of M\/s
\nJyoti Chemicals.  The receiver accepted the written down
\nvalue suggested by the valuer but reduced the royalty to
\nabout 10% of the written down value and fixed it at
\nRs.8,46,000\/- and directed that a sum of Rs. 70,000\/- per
\nmonth had to be paid by the appellant towards royalty for
\nthe plant and machinery in addition to the sum of Rs. 20
\nlakhs payable for the immovable property.  When the
\nfixation of royalty thus, was challenged by the appellant
\nbefore the Division Bench, the Division Bench directed
\nthat the appellant could question the amount of royalty
\nfixed by the court receiver before the single judge and gave
\nliberty to the single judge to pass an appropriate order.
\nThe appellant thereupon moved the learned single judge
\nand questioned the direction to pay royalty at all and
\nfurther questioned the quantum.  Meanwhile, on the
\nconstitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the suit filed
\nby the Bank of Maharashtra was transferred to the Debts
\nRecovery Tribunal.  The Debts Recovery Tribunal dealt
\nwith the application of the appellant challenging the
\nliability imposed on it for paying royalty at Rs. 70,000\/-
\nper month.  The Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the
\nchallenge.  On the aspect of liability, the Tribunal thought
\nthat the appellant having acquiesced in the order of the
\nDivision Bench regarding liability, the same could not be
\nquestioned and the challenge had to be limited to the
\nquantum and having considered the approach made by
\nthe receiver it held that there was no reason to interfere
\nwith the quantum of royalty fixed as payable.  The
\nappellant challenged that order before the Debts Recovery
\nAppellate Tribunal.  The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the
\nappeal.  The appellant thereupon approached the High
\nCourt with a Writ Petition.  The High Court took the view
\nthat the order dated 17.12.1998 precluded the appellant
\nfrom challenging the liability itself and on the materials
\navailable, there was no reason to interfere with the fixation
\nof royalty at Rs. 70,000\/- per month.  Thus, the Writ
\nPetition was dismissed by the Division Bench.  It is this
\norder that is challenged before us by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tBefore considering the contentions raised by
\nlearned counsel for the appellant we have to notice that
\nCiti Bank to whom the sum of Rs. 19 lakhs was payable
\nby the appellant described as rent of the immovable
\nproperty by the order of the High Court, has not been
\nimpleaded in this appeal.  It is therefore not possible to
\npass any order in this appeal that may prejudice Citi Bank
\nor that may interfere with the working of the order passed
\nby the High Court in favour of Citi Bank.  This aspect may
\nhave relevance when we consider some of the contentions
\nraised on behalf of the appellant by their Senior Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tIt is contended by the learned Senior Counsel
\nthat the appellant was a lessee long prior to the filing of
\nthe suit by the Bank of Maharashtra, a creditor, against
\nM\/s Jyoti Chemicals and the lease itself was granted to
\nthe appellant by M\/s Jyoti Chemicals with the consent of
\nthe Bank.  Learned counsel submitted that merely
\nbecause a creditor had filed a suit against M\/s Jyoti
\nChemicals and got a receiver appointed, the liability and
\nobligation of the lessee could not be enhanced and the
\nobligation of the lessee would remain the same as the one
\ncontained in the indenture of lease.  Learned counsel
\nsought support from the decision of this Court in
\nAnthony C. Leo Vs. Nandlal Bal Krishnan & Ors. [(1996)
\nSupp. 7 S.C.R. 669] for this position.  This contention is
\nsought to be met on behalf of the Bank mainly on the
\nbasis that the appellant had acquiesced in the earlier
\norder of the Division Bench of the High Court directing
\nthat Rs. 20 lakhs, the agreed lease amount, is to be paid
\ntowards the rent of the immovable property and that the
\nappellant would be liable to pay royalty for the plant and
\nmachinery  in addition to that amount.  We are not
\nimpressed with the argument.  A litigant is not bound to
\nappeal against every interlocutory order passed against
\nhim; he can wait until the final order is passed and in
\nappeal against that final order challenge all orders leading
\nto the final order and affecting that decision.  Stated the
\nPrivy Council in Moheshur Singh Vs. The Bengal
\nGovernment [(1859) 7 Moo Ind. App. 283] :-
\n“We are not aware of any law or Regulation
\nprevailing in India which renders it
\nimperative upon the suitor to appeal from
\nevery interlocutory order by which he may
\nconceive himself aggrieved, under the
\npenalty, if he does not do so, of forfeiting
\nforever the benefit of the consideration of
\nthe Appellate Court.  No authority or
\nprecedent has been cited in support of such
\na proposition, and we cannot conceive that
\nanything would be more detrimental to the
\nexpeditious administration of justice than
\nthe establishment of a rule which would
\nimpose upon the suitor the necessity of so
\nappealing, whereby on the one hand he
\nmight be harassed with endless expense
\nand delay, and on the other inflict upon his
\nopponent similar calamities.”\n<\/p>\n
The two exceptions to the rule are Section 105(2) of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure which precludes an order of
\nremand being challenged at a subsequent stage, while
\nchallenging the decree passed pursuant to the order of
\nremand and Section 97 of the Code where while filing an
\nappeal from the final decree, a litigant is not entitled to
\nquestion the preliminary decree on which it is based and
\nwhich had earlier become final.  Since the Code of Civil
\nProcedure is not applicable in terms to the Supreme
\nCourt, it was held by this Court in Satyadhayan Ghosal &
\nOrs. Vs. Sm. Deorajin Debi & Anr. [(1960) 3 S.C.R. 590]
\nand in Lonankutty Vs. Thomman & Anr. [(1976) Supp.
\nS.C.R. 74 at page 81] that even Section 105 (2) of the
\nCode, did not preclude this Court from examining the
\ncorrectness of the earlier order of remand passed by the
\nHigh Court in an appeal arising from the decree passed
\nsubsequent to the remand.  But as regards the High
\nCourt, the order of remand would be final.  (see the
\ndecisions in Nainsingh Vs. Koonwarjee & Ors. [(1971) 1
\nS.C.R. 207] and Sita Ram Goel Vs. Sukhnandi Dayal &
\nAnr. [(1972) 1 S.C.R. 836]. Therefore, on principle, the
\nargument that the appellant cannot challenge in this
\nappeal the order holding that he should pay royalty for the
\nplant and machinery in addition to the rent on the ground
\nthat as far as the High Court is concerned it had become
\nfinal, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tBut, here we find some difficulty in accepting
\nthis contention of the appellant in the absence of Citi
\nBank from the array of parties.  Any finding on liability
\ndifferent from the one rendered by the High Court by us
\nand another arrangement regarding payment, may have
\nan impact on the order of the High Court directing that
\nRs. 19 lakhs payable by the appellant (after adjusting Rs.
\n1 lakh from the security) be paid to Citi Bank on the basis
\nthat separate royalty is payable for the plant and
\nmachinery and that is liable to be paid to the Bank of
\nMaharashtra.  To counter this position, learned Senior
\nCounsel submitted that the appellant had surrendered the
\nundertaking on 30.9.2000 on the expiry of the term of the
\nlease and the Bank of Maharashtra has subsequently sold
\nthe undertaking and had recovered substantial amounts
\ntowards the liability of M\/s Jyoti Chemicals and under
\nthose circumstances this Court could pass an order
\nholding that no royalty was payable by the appellant to
\nthe Bank of Maharashtra.  We also find from the
\nparticulars furnished by the appellant itself that the
\nappellant was permitted to continue as agent of the
\nreceiver on usual terms and conditions without security
\nand royalty for the plant and machinery was fixed
\npursuant thereto.  We may also notice that a specific
\nground challenging the order holding that royalty was
\npayable is also not set out in the grounds of appeal so as
\nto put the respondent Bank on notice of such a contention
\nthough of course reference is made to the decision in
\nAnthony C. Leo (supra) and the obligations of the
\nappellant as a lessee being confined to the rent payable.
\nThe appellant has also acquiesced in this part of the order
\nsince the appellant could have, according to us, validly
\ncontended that there was no reason to dispossess it
\nduring the subsistence of the lease and it would have been
\nfor the court to direct that the sum of Rs. 19 lakhs
\npayable by the appellant should be paid to the receiver
\nand not to M\/s Jyoti Chemicals.  We have already
\nindicated that the order we may pass may have an impact
\non the right of Citi Bank in collecting the sum of Rs. 19
\nlakhs per year during the subsistence of the lease, since,
\nwe may have to find on the terms of the lease deed
\nexecuted by the appellant that the rent for the immovable
\nproperty was fixed only at Rs.60,000\/- per year and the
\nrest of the rent was royalty for the plant and machinery
\nwhich was also specified as immovable property therein
\nand that would raise questions as to whether the plant
\nand machinery  having been hypothecated to the Bank of
\nMaharashtra, it did not have a priority to claim that
\namount as against Citi Bank.  In this situation, we are
\nsatisfied that though legally the appellant could have
\nchallenged its obligation to pay anything more than the
\namount agreed upon under the indenture of lease, on the
\nfacts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant
\nhas precluded itself from raising that challenge before us
\nby not impleading a necessary party who might be affected
\nby our decision and by acquiescing in that decision.  We,
\ntherefore, overrule that contention of learned Senior
\nCounsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThen comes the question as to whether there is
\nany justification in interfering with the quantum of royalty
\nfixed by the receiver and approved by the Debts Recovery
\nTribunal and the High Court.  Learned counsel for the
\nappellant points out that even at the time of entering into
\nthe lease transaction, the parties had valued the plant and
\nmachinery at Rs. 11,01,912.44 and that valuation was as
\non 30.6.1985 and if at all, there was only further
\ndepreciation of the value and under the circumstances the
\nvaluer had grossly overvalued the plant and machinery at
\nRs.1,15,16,000\/- and in determining the written down
\nvalue at Rs. 74,44,600\/-.  Learned counsel also submitted
\nthat 10% of the written down value fixed as royalty by the
\ncourt receiver and approved by the court, was also on the
\nhigher side.  Learned counsel for the Bank on the other
\nhand contended that there was no proper or tenable
\nobjection to the valuation made by the valuer and it was
\ntoo late in the day for the appellant to question the
\nvaluation.  Learned counsel further submitted that there
\nwas no reason to interfere with the acceptance of that
\nvaluation and the fixation of royalty at 10% thereof by the
\nreceiver.  He also submitted that 10% of the written down
\nvalue was reasonable under the circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tWe think that on the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, taking note of the various
\naspects that had been projected before us, it would be
\nappropriate to fix the royalty at 6% of the written down
\nvalue as found by the valuer.  That would mean that the
\nroyalty would come to Rs.4,46,676\/- per year.  We think it
\nappropriate to round off that figure to Rs.5 lakhs per year.
\nThe order of the receiver as affirmed by the Debts
\nRecovery Tribunal and the High Court fixing the quantum
\nat Rs. 70,000\/- per month therefore requires modification.
\nWe therefore modify that part of the order and hold that
\nthe royalty payable by the appellant per year in addition to
\nthe sum of Rs. 20 lakhs (minus Rs. 1 lakh to be adjusted
\nout of the security) would be Rs. 5 lakhs and the yearly
\nsum at that rate has to be paid towards liability for the
\nperiod from 5.7.1996 to 30.9.2000.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIt is seen that the appellant had deposited a sum
\nof Rs. 34,99,232.87 on 12.10.2004 in the light of the order
\npassed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the extension
\nof time granted by this Court for making that payment.
\nOut of this amount, the Debts Recovery Tribunal will
\ndisburse to the Bank of Maharashtra royalty at the rate of
\nRs.5 lakhs per year for the relevant period and refund the
\nbalance to the appellant.  If the amount deposited had
\nearned any interest, the interest on the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs
\nper year will also be disbursed to the respondent Bank.
\nSince the appellant had surrendered the premises on
\nexpiry of the term on 30.9.2000, the above adjustment
\nwould put an end to the obligation of the appellant
\nimposed by the court on appointing a receiver at the
\ninstance of the Bank of Maharashtra.  The balance
\namount with interest, if any, would be refunded to the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe appeal is thus allowed as above to the
\nlimited extent with a direction to the parties to suffer their
\nrespective costs in this Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5005 of 2006 PETITIONER: Kores (India) Ltd. RESPONDENT: Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/2006 BENCH: H.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006 - 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\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-07T21:04:32+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-07T21:04:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3107,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-07T21:04:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006 - 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\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-07T21:04:32+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-07T21:04:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006"},"wordCount":3107,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006","name":"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-07T21:04:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kores-india-ltd-vs-bank-of-maharashtra-ors-on-16-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kores (India) Ltd vs Bank Of Maharashtra & Ors on 16 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/222702","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=222702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}