{"id":258898,"date":"2001-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001"},"modified":"2018-05-18T14:09:55","modified_gmt":"2018-05-18T08:39:55","slug":"ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.C.Lahoti, K.G.Balakrishna<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 5235  of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t5237\t of  2001\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)\t16073\t of  1999\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)\t16075\t of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/S PLASTO PACK, MUMBAI &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRATNAKAR BANK LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nR.C.Lahoti, K.G.Balakrishna\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThe respondent is a scheduled bank (non-nationalised). The first<br \/>\nappellant is a sole proprietary concern.  The second appellant is the<br \/>\nproprietor of the first appellant. In January, 1990 the respondent filed<br \/>\na suit, for recovery of its dues, against the appellants.  According to<br \/>\nthe respondent the appellants were sanctioned a cash credit limit of<br \/>\nRs.3,50,000\/- for which purpose a demand promissory note dated<br \/>\n17.8.1985 was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent.<br \/>\nA deed of hypothecation dated 17.8.1985 hypothecating the stock of<br \/>\nraw-materials and finished goods and a deed of mortgage of property<br \/>\ndated 14.8.1985 mortgaging the appellants&#8217;s bungalow situated in<br \/>\nAndheri (West) and a few other documents are also said to have been<br \/>\nexecuted by appellants in favour of respondent.\t On 24th January,<br \/>\n1990 an amount of Rs.7,61,798.68 p. was allegedly outstanding<br \/>\nagainst the appellants for the recovery whereof a suit on the Original<br \/>\nSide of High Court of Bombay was filed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\tOn 3rd March, 1995 a learned Single Judge, sitting on the<br \/>\nOriginal Side, passed a decree under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC<br \/>\nagainst the appellants &#8220;in terms of prayers clause (a), (c)(ii), (d)(i)<br \/>\nand (i)&#8221; with costs quantified at Rs.4026\/-.  The decree read with the<br \/>\nprayer clause of the plaint, briefly stated, shows that following reliefs<br \/>\nwere granted by the Court to the respondent against the appellants:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">a)\tThe defendants were ordered and decreed to pay to the<br \/>\nplaintiff the sum of Rs.7,61,786.68 p. &#8216;together with<br \/>\ninterest thereon at the rate of 19.5 % per annum<br \/>\ncompounded quarterly or at such other rate as the Court<br \/>\nmay deem fit and proper from the date of filing of the suit<br \/>\ntill the date of payment or realisation.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">(c)(ii) appointment of Receiver on the bungalow situated in<br \/>\nAndheri West.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">(d)(i)\tan injunction restraining the defendants from alienating,<br \/>\nencumbering or parting with possession over the<br \/>\nabovesaid bungalow.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">(i)\tcosts of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\tOn 24th November, 1997 the learned Single Judge on a motion<br \/>\nmade by the respondent and without issuing any notice to the<br \/>\nappellants passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">&#8220;order dated March 3, 1995 stands modified<br \/>\nto the extent that in the order in place of<br \/>\nprayers (c)(ii) and (d)(i), the same should<br \/>\nread as prayers (h)(i) and (b)(ii), (e), (f) and\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">(i).  Court Receiver appointed in execution of<br \/>\ndecree.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t\tThe order dated 24.11.1997 read with the prayer clause of the<br \/>\nplaint reveals\tthat in place of the reliefs stated as clauses (c)(ii) and\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">(d) (i) abovesaid, the learned Judge now granted the following reliefs<br \/>\nto the respondent against the appellants:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">(b)(ii) a declaration that the plaintiffs have a first charge over<br \/>\nthe   bungalow situated in Andheri (West) as per the<br \/>\nmortgage created by defendant no.2 in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">(e)\tCourt Receiver authorised to sell the hypothecated goods<br \/>\nand sale proceeds be appropriated in satisfaction of the<br \/>\ndecree with personal decree against the defendants for<br \/>\nthe amount remaining, if any.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">(f)\tCourt Receiver authorised to hold sale of the bungalow<br \/>\nand appropriate the said proceeds in satisfaction of the<br \/>\ndecree with a personal decree for the remaining amount,<br \/>\nif any.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">It appears that the defendants (appellants) were trying to<br \/>\nnegotiate a settlement with the respondent bank setting out the<br \/>\nfortuitous circumstances which had resulted in\tthe defendants having<br \/>\nfallen in arrears, also setting out the family circumstances which<br \/>\ndeserved a sympathetic consideration on the part of the bank but the<br \/>\nproposal made by the defendants was not evoking any favourable<br \/>\nresponse.  The defendants pleading their ignorance of the decree and<br \/>\nsetting out the reasons for their   default in contesting the suit moved<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge for setting aside the ex-parte decree.\t By<br \/>\norder dated 4.2.1999 the learned Single Judge refused to accept notice<br \/>\nof motion taken out by the defendants stating that the remedy of the<br \/>\ndefendants laid only in filing\tan appeal.   The defendants did file an<br \/>\nappeal. However, by the impugned order dated 26.7.1999 a Division<br \/>\nBench of Bombay High Court refused to entertain the appeal and<br \/>\ndismissed the same as barred by time.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">The aggrieved defendants filed a petition for special leave<br \/>\ninvoking the jurisdiction of this Court under <a href=\"\/doc\/427855\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 136<\/a> of the<br \/>\nConstitution.  During the pendency of SLP also the appellants gave an<br \/>\noffer for settlement of the dispute proposing to tender an amount of<br \/>\nRs.8,36,000\/- in full and final settlement of the decree.  The break-up<br \/>\nof the amount offered by the defendant-appellants is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">1.\tPayment of Principal Amount\t\tRs.3,50,000\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\t2.\tInterest @ 12% p.a. upto date\t\tRs.1,26,000<br \/>\n\t\t  of suit<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t3.\tInterest @ 10% p.a. from 1991 till<br \/>\n\t\t2000 (for 10 years)\t\t\tRs.3,50,000<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t4.\tCost of Suit\t\t\t\t\tRs.   10,000\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs.8,36,000<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  ========<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 19th November, 1999 this Court directed special leave to be<br \/>\ngranted and the operation of the impugned decree to be stayed<br \/>\nsubject to the appellants depositing a sum of Rs.7,61,000\/- with the<br \/>\nRegistrar of this Court.  The amount was deposited as ordered. The<br \/>\nrespondent-bank was put on notice about the amount tendered by<br \/>\nappellants by way of deposit in this court.  Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties appearing before this Court tried to settle the matter.\t Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent-bank took several adjournments for<br \/>\nseeking instructions in the matter of settlement from the respondent-<br \/>\nbank but the latter gave no response.  On 10.5.2001 this Court<br \/>\ndirected the Managing Director of respondent-Bank to appear in<br \/>\nperson in the Court so as to settle the matter. On 16.7.2001 the<br \/>\nChairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent-bank did appear<br \/>\nbut only to state that the proposal made by the appellants was not<br \/>\nacceptable to the bank and bank was not agreeable to settlement.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">\t\tIn such circumstances leave to appeal has been granted and the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties have been heard on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">\tHaving heard learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied<br \/>\nthat the High Court was not justified in refusing to set aside the ex-<br \/>\nparte decree dated 3.3.1995 as modified on 24.11.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">\tA perusal of the affidavit filed by the defendant-appellants in<br \/>\nsupport of notice of motion seeking setting aside of the ex-parte<br \/>\ndecree did make out a case for allowing the notice of motion.  We have<br \/>\nno reason to disbelieve the bona fides of the defendant-appellants.<br \/>\nThey were making a genuine effort with the respondent-bank for<br \/>\nsettlement of the dispute.  They were justifiably hopeful of the<br \/>\nsettlement because their offer was reasonable and the family and the<br \/>\nbusiness circumstances of the appellants brought to the notice of the<br \/>\nrespondent-bank should\thave normally evoked sympathy of the<br \/>\nrespondent-bank on humanistic considerations. There was nothing<br \/>\nwrong in the appellants expecting that the respondent-bank would,<br \/>\ninstead of indulging in litigation, settle the matter giving such just and<br \/>\nequitable relief to the appellants as they deserved.  There was no<br \/>\ncounter proposal made nor the appellants&#8217; proposal was at any time<br \/>\nturned down by any written communication made by the respondent-<br \/>\nbank.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">Apart from the facts and circumstances stated in the affidavit in<br \/>\nsupport of notice of motion the interest of justice also demanded the<br \/>\ndecree being set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">By order dated 3.3.1995 relief (a) set out in the plaint was<br \/>\ngranted &#8216;as it was&#8217;, without specifying the exact decretal amount and<br \/>\nthe rate of interest allowed by the Court.  Such of the prayers as were<br \/>\nnot granted by decree dated 3.3.1995 would be deemed to have been<br \/>\nrefused and to that extent the suit shall be deemed to have been<br \/>\ndismissed.  More than two years and eight months later the Court<br \/>\ncould not have, on a mere notice of motion, substituted almost a new<br \/>\ndecree in place of the old one by granting such reliefs as were not<br \/>\ngranted earlier and that too without noticing the defendant-appellants.<br \/>\nAs held in K. Rajamouli Vs. AVKN Swamy, (2001) 5 SCC 37 power<br \/>\nto amend a decree cannot be exercised so as to add to or subtract<br \/>\nfrom any relief granted earlier.  A case for setting aside the decree<br \/>\nwas earlier made out.  In the facts and circumstances of the case the<br \/>\nDivision Bench ought to have taken a liberal view of the events and<br \/>\nentertained the appeal for consideration on merits by condoning the<br \/>\ndelay in filing the same.  However, that was not done.\tWe are<br \/>\nsatisfied that grave injustice has been done to the appellants by<br \/>\ndenying them an opportunity of hearing and contesting the suit on its<br \/>\nmerits.\t We are also of the opinion that the respondent-bank ought to<br \/>\nhave taken a reasonable stand and should have sympathetically<br \/>\nconsidered the proposal of the appellants which was not lacking in<br \/>\nbona fides and in the interest of avoiding litigation and early recovery<br \/>\nof outstanding debts the respondent should have compromised the<br \/>\nsuit.  Even if the appellants&#8217; proposal was not acceptable to the<br \/>\nrespondent, at least a counter-proposal should have been made in<br \/>\nwhich case across the table discussion between the parties with the<br \/>\nassistance of their learned counsel would have brought out a mutually<br \/>\naccepted resolution and an end to the litigation.  We are constrained to<br \/>\nobserve that this litigation is being perpetuated because of the<br \/>\nunreasonable and rigid attitude of the respondent-bank.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">In ordinary course we would have remanded the matter back to<br \/>\nthe Division Bench for hearing the appeal but we are of the opinion<br \/>\nthat that course is unwarranted.  As we are satisfied that decree dated<br \/>\n4.3.1995 and the order dated 24.11.1996 amending the decree __ both<br \/>\nsuffer from serious legal infirmities and error of jurisdiction and as<br \/>\nsuch the same deserve to be set aside; more so when we are also<br \/>\nsatisfied on the affidavit of the defendant-appellants that there was a<br \/>\nsufficient cause for their non-appearance in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">For the foregoing reasons the appeals are allowed.  The<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court dated 26.7.1999, the decree dated<br \/>\n3.3.1995 and the order 24.11.1997are all set aside.  The suit is<br \/>\nrestored on the file of the High Court.\t It shall be taken up for hearing<br \/>\nand decided afresh after affording the defendant-appellants an<br \/>\nopportunity of contesting the suit on its merits.  The amount of<br \/>\nRs.7,61,000\/- deposited by the appellants with the Registry of this<br \/>\nCourt shall be refunded to the appellants as the decree has been set<br \/>\naside and settlement has failed.  Costs up to this stage shall be borne<br \/>\nby the parties as incurred.  Before parting we expect the respondent-<br \/>\nbank to take a sympathetic view of the appellants&#8217; proposal and still<br \/>\ntry to reach a settlement.  The High Court may also make an effort to<br \/>\nsettle the dispute by trying a conciliation.  In any case, we make it<br \/>\nclear that on the abovesaid amount of Rs.7,61,000\/- interest shall<br \/>\ncease with effect from 31.7.2000, the date on which the respondent-<br \/>\nbank had notice of the deposit and yet it unreasonably refused to<br \/>\naccept the tender of such amount.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C.Lahoti, K.G.Balakrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5235 of 2001 Appeal (civil) 5237 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (civil) 16073 of 1999 Special Leave Petition (civil) 16075 of 1999 PETITIONER: M\/S PLASTO PACK, MUMBAI [&hellip;]<\/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-258898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-18T08:39:55+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-18T08:39:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1818,\"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\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-18T08:39:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 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":"M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-18T08:39:55+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-18T08:39:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001"},"wordCount":1818,"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\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001","name":"M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-18T08:39:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-plasto-pack-mumbai-anr-vs-ratnakar-bank-ltd-on-10-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Plasto Pack, Mumbai &amp; Anr vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd on 10 August, 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\/258898","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=258898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258898\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}