{"id":235552,"date":"2007-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-23T07:06:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-23T01:36:56","slug":"the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\n                      Dated  13.04.2007\n\n                            Coram\n\n         The Honourable Mr.Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU\n\n                 Appeal Suit No.884 of 1994\n\n\nThe Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.,\nrep.by its Branch Manager,\nThirupur Kumaran Road,\nThirupur.                               ..Appellant\n\n       Vs\n\nAuljothi Fibre Industries,\nby its Sole Proprietor M.Shanmugham,\nAlagumallai,\nPalladam Taluk,\nThirupur.                               ..Respondents\n\n\n\n      Appeal  Suit  filed  against the  judgment and  decree\ndated 29.03.1994 passed in O.S.No.125 of 1991 on the file of\nSubordinate Judge, Tirupur.\n\n\n     For Appellant  :  Mr.M.S.Sundararajuan\n\n     For Respondent :  Mr.S.K.Rakunathan\n\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       This   appeal  arises  against  the  judgment   dated<\/p>\n
29.03.1994  by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruppur,  in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.205  of 1990, in dismissing the money  claim  of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff Bank made against the respondent \/ defendant, who,<\/p>\n
according  to  the bank, has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,55,000\/-<\/p>\n
on  13.06.1986  on the necessary documents  filed  therefor.<\/p>\n
Now, the plaint claim along with contractural interest comes<\/p>\n
to Rs.9,09,932\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2. According to the appellant\/plaintiff, the defendant<\/p>\n
approached  the  plaintiff Bank for  credit  facilities  for<\/p>\n
construction  of buildings and for purchase  of  machineries<\/p>\n
for carrying on fibre industries at Alagumalai and a sum  of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,55,000\/-  was sanctioned and paid to the  defendant  by<\/p>\n
way  of  term  loan  on  13.06.1986.   In  this  connection,<\/p>\n
according  to  the plaintiff, the defendant had  executed  a<\/p>\n
promissory  note Ex.A-1 for the said sum on the  same  date,<\/p>\n
namely,  13.06.1986  agreeing  to  repay  the  same  to  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff bank with interest at 13.5% per annum.<\/p>\n
      3.  The  plaintiff  had also produced  the  letter  of<\/p>\n
hypothecation    dated   13.06.1986   Ex.A-2,    in    which<\/p>\n
hypothecation of machinery was also mentioned,  as  well  as<\/p>\n
the  letter  of Bank Manager under Ex.A-12 dated 14.06.1986.<\/p>\n
In  that letter, it was stated by the Bank Manager that even<\/p>\n
on  13.06.1986, while the respondent\/defendant had  borrowed<\/p>\n
the  said amount, he has deposited the registration copy  of<\/p>\n
partition  deed of his family in respect of 19.14  acres  of<\/p>\n
land  and that was marked as Ex.A-5 dated 04.03.1970;  along<\/p>\n
with the said documents, it was said that the defendant  had<\/p>\n
entrusted the Certificate of Ownership and valuation  report<\/p>\n
of Village Administrative Officer of Alagumalai through Ex.A-<\/p>\n
6 and kist receipts dated 01.02.1985 and 27.02.1985 as Exs.A-<\/p>\n
7   and  A-8  and  also  the  encumbrance  certificate  from<\/p>\n
01.01.1973  to  01.01.1985  through  Ex.A-9  and  that  from<\/p>\n
01.01.1984  to  18.12.1985 as Ex.A-10.  These documents  are<\/p>\n
found  in  the  list  of documents in Ex.A-12  letter  dated<\/p>\n
14.06.1986  of  plaintiff bank; as per which, the  defendant<\/p>\n
had  deposited those documents even on 13.06.1986  with  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  bank in order to create an equitable mortgage  in<\/p>\n
its  favour  as security for the loan that was  borrowed  in<\/p>\n
Ex.A-1 pronote by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.  The Manager of the plaintiff, who was examined  as<\/p>\n
P.W.1, would also contend that Ex.A-18 is the revival letter<\/p>\n
dated 25.11.1988 that came into existence within three years<\/p>\n
from  the  date  of borrowal and by virtue of  such  revival<\/p>\n
letter, the suit is filed within the time.<\/p>\n
      5.  The  defendant in his written statement  contended<\/p>\n
that  there was no intention to create an equitable mortgage<\/p>\n
and  at  no point of time, he has placed the documents  with<\/p>\n
the  Manager  of the plaintiff bank in order  to  create  an<\/p>\n
equitable mortgage in their favour.  He would further submit<\/p>\n
that   only  a  xerox  copy  of  the  partition  deed  dated<\/p>\n
04.03.1970  has been taken from the defendant.   But  it  is<\/p>\n
very  important  to  note that under what circumstances  the<\/p>\n
documents have been placed before the bank authority was not<\/p>\n
adduced  by  the  defendant.   The  further  contention   of<\/p>\n
defendant   would  be  that  in  the  standard  forms,   his<\/p>\n
signatures  were taken by the Manager of the plaintiff  bank<\/p>\n
and  as  such,  no amount was due from him as there  was  no<\/p>\n
actual  borrowal.  This aspect has been so developed in  the<\/p>\n
course of evidence of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.  The learned Judge, who tried the case,  has  found<\/p>\n
Ex.A-18  revival  letter as unbelievable  and  believed  the<\/p>\n
version of defendant that he had signed that document  while<\/p>\n
it  was  blank.  He also believed the version of   defendant<\/p>\n
that  in  order to get a loan, the signatures were obtained.<\/p>\n
But  the defendant had not availed any other loan except the<\/p>\n
suit  loan.  The learned Judge has also canvassed  upon  the<\/p>\n
failure  of plaintiff in mentioning the existence of Ex.A-18<\/p>\n
revival   letter  in  their  notice  issued  under  Ex.A-20.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the learned Judge disbelieved Ex.A-18  and  found<\/p>\n
that the suit is barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7. It was further found by the trial court that as  no<\/p>\n
original\/revival  document  was  deposited  as  admitted  by<\/p>\n
P.W.1,  the  witness examined on the side of the  bank,  the<\/p>\n
registration copy of the partition deed and its  entrustment<\/p>\n
may  not  go  to create an equitable mortgage by deposit  of<\/p>\n
title  deeds; this was found on the ground that registration<\/p>\n
copy of the document may not show the title of the property.<\/p>\n
      8.  The learned counsel Mr.Sundararajan appearing  for<\/p>\n
the appellant\/plaintiff bank submitted two points. The first<\/p>\n
point is that Ex.A-18 was properly executed by defendant  on<\/p>\n
25.11.1988, which will make the suit claim under  pronote on<\/p>\n
13.06.1986 was within time.  If Ex.A-18 is found  true  that<\/p>\n
the  suit  is  within time, there is no  dispute  over  that<\/p>\n
aspect.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9. The learned counsel Mr.Ragunathan appearing for the<\/p>\n
respondent\/defendant submitted that Ex.A-18  was  signed  by<\/p>\n
defendant but only when it was blank.  It is unfortunate  to<\/p>\n
note  that in none of the letters or replies issued  by  the<\/p>\n
defendant, he had mentioned so.  Even assuming that  Ex.A-18<\/p>\n
was  not  properly  executed, there is three  other  letters<\/p>\n
(Exs.A-15 to A-17) written by defendant; among which one  is<\/p>\n
three  days  ahead  of  Ex.A-18 and in  those  letters,  the<\/p>\n
defendant pleaded only for re-payment by instalments.   This<\/p>\n
will  indicate the proper execution of Ex.A-18 and  now  the<\/p>\n
defendant would only state against truth in order  to  avoid<\/p>\n
the claim against him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.  So  far as the creation of equitable mortgage  by<\/p>\n
deposit  of  title deeds is concerned, it has  been  vividly<\/p>\n
dealt  with  in  Angu  Pillai @ Narayani  Achi  ..vs..  Kasi<\/p>\n
Viswanathan  (86 L.W.94) by a Division Bench of this  Court,<\/p>\n
wherein it was found as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “It  has  been  pointed out by a Full  Bench  of  the<\/p>\n
   Rangoon High Court in 1938 Rang.149 that in order  to<\/p>\n
   create  a  valid  mortgage, it is not necessary  that<\/p>\n
   the   whole,  or  even  the  most  material  of   the<\/p>\n
   documents  of  title to the property  should  show  a<\/p>\n
   complete  or good title in the depositor, and  it  is<\/p>\n
   sufficient  if the deeds deposited bona  fide  relate<\/p>\n
   to  the  property or are  material evidence of  title<\/p>\n
   or   are  shown  to  have  been  deposited  with  the<\/p>\n
   intention of creating a security thereon”.<\/p>\n
     11.  In that case law, by considering the law in regard<\/p>\n
to  equitable  mortgage,  which is  precisely  the  same  in<\/p>\n
England  as  it  is in India, reliance was placed  upon  the<\/p>\n
decision in Goodwin .vs. Waghorn (41 Rev.Rep.208), wherein a<\/p>\n
purchaser  who  had paid his purchase money  and  had  taken<\/p>\n
possession of the land, did not obtain a conveyance  and  no<\/p>\n
title  deeds  were delivered to him by the vendor.  He  only<\/p>\n
deposited the document of contract with intent to create  an<\/p>\n
equitable  mortgage.   The question  arose  whether  such  a<\/p>\n
document  of contract was a document of title.  The  learned<\/p>\n
Judge observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “But  if  the deposit of the copies of court roll  be<\/p>\n
   sufficient, I cannot see why an agreement should  not<\/p>\n
   also  be sufficient.  The deposit of the copy of  the<\/p>\n
   roll is held to create an equitable mortgage, because<\/p>\n
   it  is the best evidence of title that the party  has<\/p>\n
   the   power  of  depositing;  so  the  agreement  for<\/p>\n
   purchase  is  the best evidence of title,  until  the<\/p>\n
   contract is completed and the title deeds are  handed<\/p>\n
   over;  and in this case there was a deposit  of  that<\/p>\n
   which was the best evidence….”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12.   Similarly,  in  Dixon  .vs.  Mukhleston   (VIII<\/p>\n
L.R.Ch.Ap.cases 155), the question of priority  between  two<\/p>\n
parties   who   claimed   equitable  mortgages   arose   for<\/p>\n
consideration; where also it was held that the letter itself<\/p>\n
would create equitable mortgage.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13.  In Dohganna .vs. Jammanna (AIR(1931) Madras 613),<\/p>\n
it  was pointed out that in case of  pattas in respect of  a<\/p>\n
land  in  Zamindari, if the land be at the disposal  of  the<\/p>\n
landlord at the time of granting the patta, prima facie such<\/p>\n
patta  would  not be a mere bill of rent but something  more<\/p>\n
in  order to  create an equitable mortgage by depositing  of<\/p>\n
the  same.  This was also followed in Official Assignee .vs.<\/p>\n
Basudeva doss (AIR (1925) Madras 723.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       14.  The  decision  of  the  Rangoon  High  Court  in<\/p>\n
V.E.R.M.A.R.Chettiar Firm .vs. Ma Joo Teen (AIR (1933) Rang.<\/p>\n
299) was overruled by a Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court<\/p>\n
in  Chidambaram Chettiar .vs. Aziz Meuh AIR(1938) Rang.149).<\/p>\n
The   Full  Bench  has  reviewed  the  English  and   Indian<\/p>\n
authorities  and has pointed out that in order to  create  a<\/p>\n
valid mortgage, it is not necessary that the whole, or  even<\/p>\n
the  most material of the documents of title to the property<\/p>\n
should  be deposited; nor that the document deposited should<\/p>\n
show  a  complete or good title in the depositor and  it  is<\/p>\n
sufficient  if the deeds deposited bona fide relate  to  the<\/p>\n
property  or are material evidence of title or are shown  to<\/p>\n
have  been  deposited  with  the  intention  of  creating  a<\/p>\n
security thereon.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      15.  Even  in  a  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  in<\/p>\n
M\/s.Nataraja Nadar & Sons etc.& others ..vs.. State Bank  of<\/p>\n
India  &  others  (1993-1-L.W 456), the  question  that  was<\/p>\n
considered was whether an equitable mortgage can be  created<\/p>\n
without  depositing the original documents and also  without<\/p>\n
depositing all the relevant documents.  In the said judgment<\/p>\n
in  para  26, by relying upon C.Assiamma .vs. State Bank  of<\/p>\n
Mysore  (AIR  1990  Kerala  157),  it  was  held  that   “by<\/p>\n
‘documents  of  title’ we mean the legal  instruments  which<\/p>\n
prove the right of a person in a particular property” and it<\/p>\n
was held that the copy of documents can also be deposited in<\/p>\n
creating  equitable  mortgage.  In that case,  reliance  was<\/p>\n
placed  upon  K.J.Nathan .vs. S.V.Maruthi Rao (AIR  1965  SC<\/p>\n
430), wherein the following was observed:<\/p>\n
   “A  Court will have to ascertain in each case  whether<\/p>\n
   in substance there is a delivery of title deeds by the<\/p>\n
   debtor  to the creditor.  If the creditor was  already<\/p>\n
   in  possession of the title deeds it would  be  hyper-<\/p>\n
   technical to insist upon the formality of the creditor<\/p>\n
   delivering  the  title deeds to  the  debtor  and  the<\/p>\n
   debtor re-delivering them to the creditor. What  would<\/p>\n
   be  necessary  in those circumstances is  whether  the<\/p>\n
   parties   agreed  to  treat  the  documents   in   the<\/p>\n
   possession of the creditor or his agent as delivery to<\/p>\n
   him for the purpose of the transaction”.\n<\/p>\n
So,  it  is clearly established by catena of case laws  that<\/p>\n
registration copy of document of title can as well be placed<\/p>\n
for creation of equitable mortgage.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      16.  Therefore,  it  is futile  on  the  part  of  the<\/p>\n
defendant  to  contend that no equitable mortgage  could  be<\/p>\n
created on filing copy of the partition deed.<\/p>\n
      17.  The circumstance under which defendant  says that<\/p>\n
no  borrowal at all was made in the Bank and that he has put<\/p>\n
his signatures only in standard blank forms shows that there<\/p>\n
was  some other occasion when he happened to borrow from the<\/p>\n
bank  and  at  that occasion he has put all the  signatures.<\/p>\n
But no other loan was provided by the plaintiff bank and  no<\/p>\n
such  loan  was  also availed on the side of the  defendant.<\/p>\n
D.W.1  himself has deposed that one Palanisamy was the  then<\/p>\n
Manager,  with whom he has no aversion or affection.   Thus,<\/p>\n
there  is no motive for the bank to create documents against<\/p>\n
the  defendant and the defendant did not make out a case  or<\/p>\n
circumstance   indicating  that  due  to   that   particular<\/p>\n
circumstance,  he was necessitated to put his signatures  in<\/p>\n
the  blank  forms.  So, the way in which there  is  a  total<\/p>\n
denial of all signatures  put by defendant would go to  show<\/p>\n
that  his only aim is to get away from the clutches  of  the<\/p>\n
claim;  it  is  also to be mentioned that in all  subsequent<\/p>\n
letters  of  defendant he has sought only for  repayment  in<\/p>\n
instalments.   He  has  not  setforth  the  case   presently<\/p>\n
projected in the reply notices issued by him.  Therefore,  I<\/p>\n
come  to a conclusion that this is an after thought  by  the<\/p>\n
defendant and the suit claim has been rightly proved in view<\/p>\n
of the decisions relied on supra and hence, the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of the trial court is liable to be set aside and  the<\/p>\n
suit is to be decreed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      17. Regarding interest, contractual rate of 13.5%  was<\/p>\n
agreed to be paid.   Therefore, I have no other go except to<\/p>\n
grant  contractual interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum.<\/p>\n
      18. For the aforesaid reasons, the decree and judgment<\/p>\n
rendered  by the trial court is set aside and the appeal  is<\/p>\n
allowed  and the suit is decreed with interest and costs  as<\/p>\n
prayed  for in the suit.  In this appeal, there will  be  no<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\ngl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Subordinate Judge,
\n    Thiruppur.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Record Keeper,
\n    V.R.Section,
\n    High Court,
\n    Madras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated 13.04.2007 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU Appeal Suit No.884 of 1994 The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., rep.by its Branch Manager, Thirupur Kumaran Road, Thirupur. ..Appellant Vs Auljothi Fibre Industries, by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007 - 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\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-23T01:36:56+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T01:36:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2129,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007\",\"name\":\"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T01:36:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007 - 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\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-23T01:36:56+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T01:36:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007"},"wordCount":2129,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007","name":"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T01:36:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-vilas-bank-ltd-vs-auljothi-fibre-industries-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd vs Auljothi Fibre Industries on 13 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/235552","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=235552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}