{"id":262355,"date":"2011-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-04T17:03:21","modified_gmt":"2018-11-04T11:33:21","slug":"somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: S. Muralidhar<\/div>\n
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                            W.P. (C) 7228\/2005\n\n                                                   Reserved on: September 29, 2011\n                                                   Decision on: October 17, 2011\n\n SOMNATH MANOCHA                                                         ..... Petitioner\n                                     Through:      Mr. R. K. Saini with\n                                                   Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocates.\n\n                            versus\n\n\n PUNJAB & SIND BANK & ORS                                            ..... Respondents\n                      Through:                     Mr. Khalid Abdullah, Advocate.\n\n CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR\n\n   1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n         allowed to see the judgment?                              No\n   2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?                    Yes\n   3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?        Yes\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                      17.10.2011<\/p>\n
1. Aggrieved by a notice dated 20th November 2004 issued by Respondent No. 1 Punjab
\n& Sind Bank (\u201eBank\u201f) under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
\nFinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act<\/a>, 2002 (\u201eSARFAESI Act<\/a>\u201f)
\nand consequent possession notice under Section 13<\/a> (4) SARFAESI Act<\/a> dated 13th April
\n2005 taking over possession of the immovable property bearing old No. 4A, New
\nMunicipal No. 32\/24, Pratap Nagar, Jagdish Colony, Rohtak (Haryana) [\u201ethe property
\nin question\u201f], the Petitioner, who is the owner of the property in question, has filed this
\npresent petition.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Petitioner stated that he had purchased the property in question by a registered
\nsale deed dated 16th April 1980. In 1981, the Bank extended loan and credit facilities to
\none M\/s. General Tyre House, a partnership firm in which the relatives of the Petitioner
\nwere partners. The Petitioner was one of the three guarantors in respect of the said loan
\nand credit facilities, which was secured by an equitable mortgage upon the property in<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 7228 of 2005                                                        Page 1 of 5<\/span>
\n question in favour of the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
3. On 10th December 1984 the Bank filed in this Court a suit for recovery of a sum of
\nRs. 7,75,283.60 against M\/s. General Tyre House, its partners and the three guarantors
\nincluding the Petitioner. The said Suit No. 935 of 1984 instituted under Order XXXVII
\nCPC is stated to be still pending. It is stated by the Petitioner that the principal borrower
\nhas, in the said suit, filed a counter claim against the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
4. On 18th December 2002 the SARFAESI Act<\/a> came into force. The mortgage in the
\npresent case falls within the definition of \u201efinancial asset\u201f under Section 2<\/a> (l) (iii)
\nSARFAESI Act<\/a> and the Bank falls within the definition of \u201esecured creditor\u201f under
\nSection 2<\/a> (zd) thereof. Under Section 13<\/a> (4) thereof, the secured creditor is entitled to
\nexercise its rights in respect of the mortgaged property by taking over possession
\nthereof, if the borrower fails to discharge the full liability within 60 days of a notice
\nbeing issued to him under Section 13<\/a> (2) SARFAESI Act<\/a>. Section 36<\/a> SARFAESI Act
\nprohibits the secured creditor from taking any of the measures under Section 13<\/a> (4)
\nthereof unless a claim in respect of the financial assets is made within the period of
\nlimitation prescribed under the Limitation Act<\/a>, 1963 (\u201eLA\u201f).\n<\/p>\n
5. On 20th November 2004 the Bank issued a notice to the principal borrower, its
\npartners and three guarantors including the Petitioner under Section 13<\/a> (2) SARFAESI
\nAct<\/a> calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding liability amounting to Rs.
\n3,84,59,807\/- together with interest with effect from 21st November 2004 as well as
\ncosts in the sum of Rs. 35,615\/-. The Petitioner replied to the said notice on 7th January
\n2005 referring to Section 36<\/a> SARFAESI Act and pointing out that the notice itself was
\nbarred by limitation. It was stated that the limitation period in the event of recovery of
\nmoney secured by mortgage was 12 years from the date when the amount became due
\nunder Article 62<\/a> of the Schedule to the LA. The amount became due on 11th and 12th
\nOctober 1982. The claim for money became time barred in the year October 1985, and
\nthe claim based on mortgage, in the year 1994. The Bank, by a reply dated 26th
\nFebruary 2005, reiterated its stand. On 13th April 2005 the Bank issued the possession
\nnotice under Section 13<\/a> (4) SARFAESI Act<\/a> read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest
\n(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed.\n<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 7228 of 2005                                                       Page 2 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 6. On 26th April 2005 this Court directed notice to issue in this petition after noting the
\ncontention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the action initiated by the Bank
\nunder the SARFAESI Act<\/a> was time barred. Further, it was directed that in the interim
\nthe parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the property in question. Thereafter,
\nthe interim order was made absolute on 15th December 2005 and Rule was issued on
\n22nd May 2008.\n<\/p>\n
7. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the
\nproceedings under the SARFAESI Act<\/a> were instituted more than 18 years after the
\nfiling of the suit and therefore, were time barred under Section 36<\/a> SARFAESI Act.
\nSince the Bank has already filed a suit, it would be unreasonable to permit it to also
\ninvoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act<\/a> in regard to the outstanding liability of the
\nprincipal borrower.\n<\/p>\n
8. Mr. Khalid Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the Bank referred to the counter
\naffidavit filed on its behalf. He submitted that the filing of the suit by the Bank for
\nrecovery of money was within the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the
\nBank was, for the purposes of Section 36<\/a> SARFAESI Act, entitled to take measures
\nunder Section 13<\/a> (4) thereof since it had made a claim in respect of the financial asset,
\ni.e., the mortgage of the property in question, by filing the suit within the prescribed
\ntime of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
9. The above submissions have been considered. The SARFAESI Act<\/a> was intended to
\nprovide an additional remedy to a financial institution to recover its debts. The
\nStatement of Objects and Reasons of the SARFAESI Act<\/a> acknowledged that the
\nexisting legal framework relating to commercial transactions has not kept pace with the
\nchanging commercial practice which has resulted in slow pace of recovery of defaulting
\nloans and mounting levels of non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions.
\nSection 35<\/a> SARFAESI Act provides that “the provisions of the said Act shall have
\neffect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for
\nthe time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law”. It is
\ntherefore, apparent that the remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act<\/a> to a secured
\ncreditor for recovery of a debt owing to it, is independent of any other remedy available
\nW.P. (C) No. 7228 of 2005                                                      Page 3 of 5<\/span>
\n in law. Section 36<\/a> SARFAESI Act requires that a claim should have been made by the
\nlender in respect of the financial assets within the period of limitation prescribed under
\nthe LA. Section 36<\/a> does not mandate that the notice under Section 13<\/a> (2) SARFAESI
\nAct<\/a> must be issued within such period of limitation. A \u201eclaim\u201f in respect of the
\nfinancial asset, could be by way of any proceedings in accordance with law. Since the
\nSARFAESI Act itself came into force only on 18th December 2002, the legislative
\nintent was that even the sum owned to a secured creditor prior to that date can be
\nsought to be recovered as long as the claim was made within the prescribed period of
\nlimitation. A similar view has been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Ivee
\nInjectaa Ltd. v. Junagadh Vibhagyiya Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd<\/a>. (2006) 129 Comp
\nCas 528 (Guj).\n<\/p>\n
10. In the present case, the Bank had made a claim in respect of the secured financial
\nasset by filing a suit in the year 1984. Admittedly, the suit was filed within the
\nlimitation period. Therefore, the essential requirement of Section 36<\/a> SARFAESI Act
\nwas fulfilled. The Bank validly proceeded to the next step by issuing a notice under
\nSection 13<\/a> (4) SARFAESI Act<\/a>. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the
\ncontention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the notice under Section 13<\/a> (2) and
\nthe possession notice under Section 13<\/a> (4) SARFAESI Act<\/a> issued by the Bank were
\nwithout jurisdiction. The remedy to the borrower who received a possession notice
\nunder Section 13<\/a> (4) SARFAESI Act<\/a> is to file an appeal to the Debts Recovery
\nTribunal (\u201eDRT) within 45 days thereof under Section 17<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act. In the
\npresent case the Petitioner has a remedy of an appeal to the DRT under Section 17<\/a>
\nSARFAESI Act. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the contentions of the
\nparties in regard to the impugned action of the Bank under Section 13<\/a> (2) and (4)
\nSARFAESI Act<\/a>, this Court declines to entertain this writ petition. It is clarified that it
\nwill be open to the Petitioner to invoke the remedy available to him under Section 17<\/a>
\nSARFAESI Act.\n<\/p>\n
11. Considering that there was an interim order made by this Court on 26th April 2005,
\nit is directed that the said interim order will continue for a further period of four weeks
\nto enable the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under Section 17<\/a> SARFAESI Act
\nbefore the DRT. It is made clear that the interim order would come to an end on 16th
\nW.P. (C) No. 7228 of 2005                                                      Page 4 of 5<\/span>
\n November 2011 or till such time the DRT takes up the Petitioner\u201fs appeal under
\nSection 17<\/a> SARFAESI Act, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      S. MURALIDHAR, J
\nOCTOBER 17, 2011
\nrk<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 7228 of 2005                                          Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011 Author: S. Muralidhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) 7228\/2005 Reserved on: September 29, 2011 Decision on: October 17, 2011 SOMNATH MANOCHA ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Saini with Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, […]<\/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-262355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSomnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011 - 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\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-04T11:33:21+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T11:33:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1430,\"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\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T11:33:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011 - 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\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-04T11:33:21+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T11:33:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011"},"wordCount":1430,"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\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011","name":"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T11:33:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somnath-manocha-vs-punjab-sind-bank-ors-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011"}]},{"@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\/262355","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=262355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262355\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}