{"id":247199,"date":"2001-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001"},"modified":"2017-07-09T02:19:34","modified_gmt":"2017-07-08T20:49:34","slug":"bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IAD Delhi 636, 2003 115 CompCas 369 Delhi<\/div>\n
Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 A.K. Sikri, J. <\/p>\n
 1. Bank of India, who is the petitioner in this
\ncase, has filed this contempt petition under Article
\n215 of the Constitution of India as well as under
\nSections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
\nThe petitioner Bank has prayed for initiation of the
\ncontempt proceedings against the alleged
\ncontemnors\/respondents herein. The cause for filing the
\npresent petition is the alleged willful breach,
\ndisregard, violation and disobedience of the
\nundertakings and assurances dated 24th May and 25th
\nMay, 2000 given to this court by the respondents in CWP
\nNo. 265 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the
\npetitioner Bank, it would be appropriate to scan
\nthrough the salient facts which led to giving of the
\naforesaid undertakings and assurances dated 24th and
\n25th May, 2000:\n<\/p>\n
 3. The respondents No. 6, namely, M\/s Usha Micro
\nProcess Controls Limited, is a company incorporated
\nunder the Indian Companies Act (hereinafter referred to
\nas the ‘respondent No. 6 company’). It made a reference
\nto Board for Industrial and Financial
\nReconstruction (for short ‘BIFR’) under the provisions
\nof Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,
\n10985 on the ground that it was a sick company and for
\nits rehabilitation. Order dated 29th April, 1996 was
\npassed by BIFR declaring it to be a sick company and
\nreturning the findings that the company cannot be
\nrehabilitated. It accordingly recommended the winding
\nup of the company. Against this order the respondent
\nNo. 6 company filed appeal before the Appellate
\nAuthority for Industrial and Financial
\nReconstruction (for short ‘AAIFR’) which was also
\ndismissed by order dated 28th October, 1996. The
\nrespondent No. 6 company and one Mr. S. Vishwanathan filed
\nCWP No. 265\/97 in this court challenging the aforesaid
\norders of BIFR and AAIFR. It also moved CM No. 429\/97
\nfor grant of ad interim orders.\n<\/p>\n
 4. At this stage, it may be apposite to point out
\nthat the petitioner Bank herein is one of the creditors
\nof the respondent No. 6 company which filed a suit for
\nrecovery of Rs. 4,73,67,035.92 paisa besides costs and
\ninterest against the respondent No. 6 company on 24th
\nNovember, 1993 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
\nDuring the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition in
\nthis court, the respondent No. 6 company expressed its
\nintention to settle the dues of different creditors
\nincluding the petition Bank hereby and to show its
\nbona fides deposited sums of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 16
\nlacs which the petitioner Bank kept in a ‘No-lien
\nAccount’. Thereafter the proposals for settlement were
\ndiscussed between the parties from time to time. On
\n20th December, 1999 the counsel for the respondent No. 6
\ncompany stated before the court in the aforesaid writ
\npetition that vide letter dated 25th November, 1999 the
\npetitioner Bank had accepted the offer of one time
\nsettlement as proposed by the respondent No. 6 company
\nand on this submission, the court passed the following
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
  “On payment of the same and subject to
\nother conditions, contained in the
\nletter, the matter with Bank of India
\nwill stand settled.”\n<\/p>\n
 5. However, the respondent No. 6 company did not
\ncomply with the terms and conditions contained in the
\nletter dated 6th September, 1999 of the respondent No. 6
\ncompany which was accepted by the petitioner Bank.
\ninstead, the respondent No. 6 company filed an affidavit
\nof undertaking of Mr. D. Kar, respondent No. 2 herein and
\none of the Directors of the respondent No. 6 company as
\nper which following undertaking was given:\n<\/p>\n
 “1. That I am the director of the
\npetitioner company and therefore
\ncompetent to give this undertaking.\n<\/p>\n
 2. That the petitioner company undertake
\nto pay Rs. 1,39,73,008\/- on or before
\n31.7.2000 towards full and final
\nsettlement with the Bank of India in
\nterms of the settlement dated 25.11.1999
\nbetween the petitioner and Bank of
\nIndia (respondent No. 6).\n<\/p>\n
 3. That I have deposed correctly.”\n<\/p>\n
 6. When the matter came up before the court on
\n25th May, 2000 acting on the basis of the aforesaid
\naffidavit of undertaking and the statement of the
\nlearned senior counsel for the respondent No. 6 company,
\nmade on instructions, the aforesaid undertaking was
\naccepted by this court. Following order was passed:\n<\/p>\n
C.W. 265\/97 and CM 429\/97 <\/p>\n
 “Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel for the
\npetitioner says that he has instructions
\nto state that petitioner shall deposit a
\nsum of Rs. 1,39,73,008\/- in this court
\ntowards the liability of the New Bank of
\nIndia on or before 31st July, 2000. He
\npoints out that the petitioner has
\nexecuted and undertaking to that effect.
\nLearned senior counsel for the petitioner
\nalso says that undertaking be recorded.
\nWe order accordingly. At the same time
\nwe clarify that the deposit made by the
\npetitioner shall be without prejudice to
\nthe rights and contentions of the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
 In so far as Canara Bank is concerned,
\nMr. Nayar says that Mr. Raman Malhotra,
\nDirector of the petitioner company is
\npresent and he would like to make a
\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr. Raman Malhotra, Director of the
\npetitioner company states that he has the
\nauthority to state on behalf of the
\npetitioner that a sum of Rs. 62.17 lakhs
\nshall be deposited in this court on or
\nbefore 31st July, 2000 towards the
\nliability of Canara Bank. He states that
\nhis statement be treated as an
\nundertaking on behalf of the petitioner
\nand the same be recorded. We order
\naccordingly. The undertakings and the
\ndeposit shall be without prejudice to the
\nrights and contentions of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
 List the matter on 3rd August, 2000.”\n<\/p>\n
 (It appears that name of the Bank ‘New
\nBank of India’ has been wrongly typed
\nwhich should have been ‘Bank of India’).\n<\/p>\n
 7. This order reveals that respondent No. 1 also
\ngave undertakings to the Court to clear the dues of
\nCanara Bank.\n<\/p>\n
 8. As per the aforesaid undertaking, the amount
\nof Rs. 1,39,73,008\/- was to be deposited on or before
\n31st July, 2000. This amount was, however, not
\ndeposited and instead application for extension of time
\nto deposit this amount by 31st October, 2000 was filed
\nwhich was registered as CM 6549\/2000. The payment was
\nstill not made as undertaken. Now on or about 18th
\nOctober, 2000 another CM 9686\/2000 was filed in which,
\ninter alia, following prayer was made:
\n  That the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 be
\ndirected to agree for settle the dues of
\nthe petitioner company being settled in
\naccordance with the Reserve Bank of India
\nguidelines for recovery of dues relating
\nto non-performing assets of public sector
\nbanks dated July 27, 2000.”\n<\/p>\n
 This application was dismissed with following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
 “By means of the application, the
\npetitioner wants to wriggle out of the
\nundertakings given to the court on 25th
\nMay, 2000. The undertakings given by the
\npetitioner were recorded and accepted.
\nThe petitioner cannot be allowed to
\nbreach the undertakings given to this
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
 The application is accordingly
\ndismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, the
\namount in question was not deposited. This act of
\nomission and commission has forced the petitioner Bank
\nto file the present contempt petition stating that the
\naction of the alleged contemnors\/respondents in not
\ndepositing the amount as per the undertakings and
\nassurances given to this court is intentional and
\nwillful. It amounts to willful disregard and
\ndisobedience of the undertakings dated 24th and 25th
\nMay, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Separate replies are filed by the respondents
\n1 and 2. An application has been filed on behalf of
\nthe respondents 3-5 (CM 348\/2001) contending that the
\nnames of the respondents 3-5 be deleted as they are
\nwrongly imp leaded as parties. We shall address to this
\naspect at a later stage in this order.\n<\/p>\n
 12. As already noticed above, the affidavit of
\nundertaking dated 24th May, 2000 was given by the
\nrespondent No. 2 as a Director of the respondent No. 6
\ncompany in which he undertook, on behalf of the
\nrespondent No. 6 company, to make the payment of
\nRs. 1,39,73,008\/- to the petitioner Bank which
\nundertaking was accepted by the court vide order dated
\n25th May, 2000. On the basis of the aforesaid
\nundertaking given on 25th May, 2000 the order dated
\n25th May, 2000 further shows that a sum of Rs. 62.17
\nlakhs was to be deposited by the respondent No. 6
\ncompany towards the liability of Canara bank. Therefore,
\nso far as respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, both had
\ngiven undertakings to this court which they have
\nadmittedly flouted.\n<\/p>\n
 13. It may be mentioned that in the replies by
\nrespondents 1 and 2, which are almost identical, both
\nthe respondents admit that there is a non-compliance of
\nthe undertakings given by them to this court.
\nTherefore, factum of breach of the undertakings has
\nbeen accepted by the respondents 1 and 2. Learned
\ncounsel for the respondents 1 and 2 was candid in
\naccepting this position even at the time of arguments.
\nHowever, his only plea was that there is no willful
\ndefault or non-compliance on the part of these two
\nrespondents and in replies filed these respondents have
\ntried to explain the circumstances because of which the
\ndeposit could not be made. It is sought to be urged
\nthat these respondents were only the employee Directors
\nacting under the instructions of promoters, namely, the
\nrespondents 3-5 and the undertakings to this court were
\ngiven by these respondents pursuant to the instructions
\ngiven by the respondents 3-5 who had also promised to
\nprovide for the funds for making necessary deposits in
\nterms of undertakings dated 25th May, 2000 given by the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 and accepted by this court. It is
\nalso stated that they have since resigned from the
\nemployment and as also from the Directorship of the
\nrespondent No. 6 company. The learned counsel for these
\nrespondents was at pain to argue that these two
\nrespondents being only employees of the respondent No. 6
\ncompany, could not be made to pay the amount, and
\ntherefore, there was no willful default or
\nnon-compliance and these respondents were tendering
\nunconditional and unqualified apology to this court
\nwith request to accept the same. This apology is
\ncontained in para 7 the relevant portion of which reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
  “That though there was no willful
\ndefault\/non-compliance on the part of the
\nanswering respondent, still, since the
\nnon-compliance of the said
\nstatement\/undertaking is there, the
\nanswering respondent tenders the
\nunconditional and unqualified apology to
\nthis Hon’ble Court with a request to this
\nHon’ble Court to accept the same.”\n<\/p>\n
 14. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and
\n2 further accepted the position that non-compliance of
\nthe undertakings amounted to contempt of the court and
\nhis submission was that the explanation given in the
\nreplies being genuine, the matter be set at rest by
\naccepting the apology of these two respondents.\n<\/p>\n
 15. The submissions on the basis of which
\nnon-compliance is sought to be explained away are
\ntotally irrelevant and misconceived. These two
\nrespondents were admittedly working as Directors of the
\nrespondent No. 6 company. They had given the
\nundertakings to this court as Directors. In fact in
\nthe affidavit of the respondent No. 2, he had stated in
\nno uncertain terms that he was authorised to give such
\nan undertaking. Likewise, the respondent No. 1 appeared
\nin the court and gave his undertaking. What was the
\narrangement between the respondents 1 and 2 or for that
\nmatter, between the respondent No. 6 company and the
\nrespondents 3-5 as alleged promoters, was neither
\ndisclosed nor the concern of the court in accepting the
\nundertakings. Secondly, the same attempt of the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 to wriggle out of the undertakings
\non the same ground before the writ court by filing CM
\nNo. 9686\/2000 failed as the said CM was dismissed by
\norder dated 9th February, 2001 categorically recording
\nthat they cannot be allowed to breach the undertakings
\ngiven to the court.\n<\/p>\n
 16. As already noticed above, this contempt
\npetition is filed only on the ground that the
\nundertakings given to this court have been breached.
\nThese undertakings were given by the respondents 1 and\n<\/p>\n
2. It may be noticed that the writ petition filed by
\nthe respondent No. 6 company was adjourned from time to
\ntime to enable the respondent No. 6 company to settle
\nthe matter with the creditors i.e., different Banks
\nincluding Bank of India and Canara Bank. The
\nrespondent No. 6 company dragged on the matter, which
\nwas filed in the year 1997, by representing that it was
\nsettling the matter with various creditors. Otherwise,
\nas per the order of BIFR, which was upheld by the AAIFR
\nalso, the respondent No. 6 company would have been wound
\nup long ago. Thus by giving solemn declaration to the
\neffect that the amount in question would be paid within
\nstipulated period, the respondents 1 and 2 made this
\ncourt to believe that they would abide by the same and
\nin this manner, obtained benefit by not allowing the
\norders of BIFR to be implemented. The reason why
\nbreach of undertaking given to court amounts to
\ncontempt is that the contemnor by making false
\nrepresentations to the court obtains benefit and if he
\nfails to honour the undertaking, he plays a serious
\nfraud on the court and thereby obstructs the course of
\njustice. An undertaking entered into with or given to
\nthe court by a party has exactly the same force as an
\norder made by the court and accordingly breach of an
\nundertaking amounts to contempt in the same way as
\nbreach of an injunction. Therefore, such breach is
\nliable to be visited by the same punishment as breach
\nof an injunction. (See:  Chhaganbhai v. Soni
\nChandubhai  and  Saleemuddin
\nand Anr.<\/a> v. Sharfuddin and Ors. .\n<\/p>\n
 17. Thus when the undertaking is given to the
\ncourt, it is to be treated as a solemn undertaking and
\nthe non-compliance\/adherence of which clearly amounts
\nto the contempt of court. As mentioned above, the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 have not disputed this position.
\nThe question of accepting the apology would have arisen
\nonly if the respondents 1 and 2 had purged the contempt
\nby depositing the amount. However, that is not done.
\nThe contempt still persists. The stand taken by the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 in their replies and as also argued
\nby their learned counsel is that they would not be
\ncomplying with the undertakings as they have no means
\nto do so. Therefore, having not purged the contempt,
\nthe unconditional and unqualified apology of the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 cannot be accepted. We accordingly
\nreject this apology.\n<\/p>\n
18. It is time now to decide the nature of
\npunishment which is to be inflicted upon the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 for committing the contempt.
\nLearned counsel for these contemnors made a fervent
\nplea for taking a lenient view keeping in view the
\ncircumstances in which the undertaking was given. Here
\nthere are certain mitigating circumstances which
\npersuade us to take a lenient view in the matter. The
\nundertakings were given on behalf of the respondent
\nNo. 6 company of which the respondents 1 and 2 were the
\nemployee Directors. Position may have been different
\nhad the respondents been directors in control of
\nfinances and affairs of the respondent No. 6 company.
\nThey were not going to have any personal gain.
\nTherefore, although the breach of undertakings may be
\nwillful in technical sense as the respondents 1 and 2
\nhave intentionally and willfully refused to adhere to
\nthe said undertakings, fact remains that they have no
\ncontrol over finances and being employee Directors who
\nwere getting remuneration from the respondent No. 6
\ncompany, they could not have paid the amount from their
\nown pockets. These considerations persuade us to take
\na lenient view of the matter. Therefore, while the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 have to be convicted for an offence
\nof contempt of court to uphold the majesty of law, we
\nconvict them and sentence them to an imprisonment of
\none day i.e. till rising of the court. We also
\nsentence them to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000\/- each to be
\npaid within a period of two months. We also impose
\ncost of Rs. 10,000\/- each on these two contemnors to be
\npaid to Delhi Legal Aid and Advise Board.\n<\/p>\n
 19. In so far as the respondents 3-5 are
\nconcerned, they are imp leaded in this contempt petition
\nonly on the ground that they Along with respondents 1
\nand 2 are also the Directors of the respondent No. 6
\ncompany and are in charge and responsible to the
\nrespondent No. 6 company for giving the undertakings and
\nassurances on behalf of the respondent No. 6 company.
\nHowever, in the CM No. 348\/2001 filed by these
\nrespondents, it is explained that the respondent No. 3
\nremained Director of the respondent No. 6 company from
\n25th November 1981 to 15th February, 1989; respondent
\nNo. 4 was the Director from 25th November, 1984 to 6th
\nApril, 1985; respondent No. 5 was the Director from
\n23rd January, 1984 to 6th September, 1984 and again
\nfrom 2nd February, 1985 to 18th August, 1986. Thus the
\nrespondents 3-5 ceased to be the Directors w.e.f. 15th
\nFebruary, 1989, 6th April, 1985 and 18th August, 1986
\nrespectively. This position is not disputed by the
\npetitioner Bank or the respondents 1 and 2. Thus the
\nrespondents 3-5 were not the Directors of the
\nrespondent No. 6 company on 25th May, 2000 when the
\nundertakings given by the respondents 1 and 2 were
\naccepted by the court. Even if the respondents 3-5,
\nalleged promoters of the respondent No. 6 company, were
\nproviding the funds for repaying the creditors, which
\nfact is however not borne from the record, such an
\narrangement, if any, was the arrangement of the
\nrespondents interse., So far as the respondents 3-5 are
\nconcerned, they did not given any undertaking to this
\ncourt. The present contempt petition is filed alleging
\nbreach of the undertaking which was given only by the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 and not by the respondents 3-5.
\nTherefore, as far as the respondents 3-5 are concerned,
\nno action can be taken against them.\n<\/p>\n
 20. This CCP stands disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 IAD Delhi 636, 2003 115 CompCas 369 Delhi Author: A Sikri Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Bank of India, who is the petitioner in this case, has filed this contempt petition under […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001 - 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\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-08T20:49:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-08T20:49:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2895,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001\",\"name\":\"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-08T20:49:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001 - 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\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-08T20:49:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-08T20:49:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001"},"wordCount":2895,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001","name":"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-08T20:49:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bank-of-india-vs-raman-malhotra-and-ors-on-12-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bank Of India vs Raman Malhotra And Ors. on 12 December, 2001"}]},{"@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\/247199","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=247199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}