{"id":28796,"date":"2002-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002"},"modified":"2017-04-11T22:56:08","modified_gmt":"2017-04-11T17:26:08","slug":"syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  972 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nSYNDICATE BANK\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. VEERANNA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/12\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2002 Supp(5) SCR 600<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>This appeal is by the plaintiff-Bank aggrieved by the impugned judgment and<br \/>\ndecree of the High Court dismissing their first appeal and affirming the<br \/>\njudgment of the trial court. The appellant-Bank filed suit for recovery of<br \/>\ntotal amount of Rs. 16,15,091.05 against the defendants. The appellant<br \/>\nadvanced loan of three kinds to the defendant No. I and defendant Nos. 2<br \/>\nand 3 were the guarantors. When the defendants failed to make payment of<br \/>\nthe amount borrowed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. The<br \/>\ndefendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds. In view<br \/>\nof the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following<br \/>\nissues: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; 1. Whether defendants have agreed to pay interest at 5% per annum above<br \/>\nthe Reserve Bank of India rate subject to minimum of 11% per annum, to be<br \/>\ncompounded quarterly?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      Whether the interest claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant<br \/>\nunder the Usurious Loans Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      Whether plaintiff is not entitled to more than Rs. 21.500\/- as<br \/>\nservice charges?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.      Whether defendants have acknowledged the debts and if not, whether<br \/>\nthe suit is barred by limitation?\n<\/p>\n<p>5.      Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action?\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      Whether defendants are entitled to instalments claimed?\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     To what reliefs are parties entitled? Additional issues:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.      Whether the plaintiff Bank is justified in unilaterally raising the<br \/>\nrate of interest?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      Whether the interest charges is correct?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff-Bank examined its officers as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked<br \/>\ndocuments as P-1 to P-40. The defendant No. I entered the witness box and<br \/>\nexamined himself as DW-2 and one Krishnamurthy, a Chartered Accountant was<br \/>\nexamined on behalf of the defendants as DW-I. The defendants got marked<br \/>\ndocuments as D-l to D-40. The trial court, having considered and<br \/>\nappreciated the evidence placed before it both documentary as well as oral,<br \/>\nrecorded findings on issue Nos. I to 3 in the affirmative and on issue Nos.<br \/>\n5 and 6 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative. As far as issue<br \/>\nNo.4 is concerned the trial court recorded a finding that the defendants<br \/>\nhave acknowledged all the debts and the suit claim of the plaintiff under<br \/>\nthree loans was within time. However, during the course of the argument<br \/>\nbefore the trial court, learned counsel for the defendants disputed only<br \/>\nabout the higher rate of interest charged by the plaintiff-Bank. The<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the defendants also made a specific statement that<br \/>\ndefendants give up all other contentions. It was further submitted that the<br \/>\ndefendants were ready to pay the loan amount due from them with agreed rate<br \/>\nof interest compounded with quarterly rate but they were not ready to pay<br \/>\nthe higher rate of interest as claimed by the plaintiff under the pretext<br \/>\nthat the RBI has enhanced the rate of interest. The learned trial Judge in<br \/>\nview of the submissions, as can be seen from the judgment, has recorded<br \/>\nthat the only point that came up for decision was as regards the charging<br \/>\nof higher rate of interest by the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the<br \/>\nsuit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 9,82,963.47 against the<br \/>\ndefendants with current rate of interest at the rate of 11% per annum from<br \/>\nthe date of the suit on the balance amount due from the defendants. The<br \/>\ntrial court refused to grant interest at the enhanced rate claimed by the<br \/>\nplaintiff in terms of the agreement keeping in view the Reserve Bank<br \/>\ncirculars. The plaintiff-Bank to the extent of refusal of interest at the<br \/>\nrate claimed Tiled regular first appeal before the High Court. The High<br \/>\nCourt did not find any good ground to differ with the finding recorded by<br \/>\nthe trial court as regards rate of interest. In that view, the first appeal<br \/>\nwas also dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the plaintiff-Bank has brought<br \/>\nthis appeal to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned counsel for the appellant contended that having regard to the<br \/>\nagreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants as regards<br \/>\nthe rate of interest, the trial court as well as the High Court committed<br \/>\nan error in not accepting the claim of the appellant to award the interest;<br \/>\nthe High Court was also not justified in holding that the appellant was not<br \/>\nentitled to charge higher rate of interest without giving notice and<br \/>\ncharging such interest was in violation of principles of natural justice<br \/>\ninasmuch as rate of interest was enhanced without giving an opportunity to<br \/>\nthe defendants. According to the learned counsel, the High Court committed<br \/>\nan error in refusing the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that it<br \/>\nfailed to follow the circulars issued by the head office; the circulars<br \/>\nissued were only for the guidance of the officers of the Bank, which could<br \/>\nnot vary terms of the contract. Learned counsel added that the claim of the<br \/>\nBank was substantiated by the accounts maintained by the Bank and the<br \/>\nextracts were produced before the trial court. Further in 1978, the<br \/>\ndefendants acknowledged their liability of the amount and the amount<br \/>\ncalculated was on the basis of the enhanced rate of interest on the basis<br \/>\nof the agreed terms between the parties. According to him, it was not open<br \/>\nto the defendants, having acknowledged the liability, to contend that the<br \/>\nrate of interest charged was on higher side. It was also the submission of<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the appellant that once the plaintiff placed the<br \/>\nevidence before the Court to establish that it was entitled to charge<br \/>\nhigher rate of interest it was for the defendants to rebut the same. The<br \/>\ndefendants in this regard failed to do so. The courts were not justified in<br \/>\nrefusing to award the interest as claimed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that in the plaint itself the<br \/>\nplaintiff has claimed the contract rate of interest at 11%; hence it was<br \/>\nnot open to the plaintiff to claim higher rate of interest; in the plaint<br \/>\naverments were not made as to what was the rate of interest charged from<br \/>\ntime to time. The learned counsel submitted that the trial court on<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence recorded findings as to the appropriate rate of<br \/>\ninterest and High Court has confirmed the same. Hence, this Court may not<br \/>\ninterfere with the findings.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the parties. The trial court rejected the claim of the plaintiff as<br \/>\nregards the interest on the ground that here was absolutely no record to<br \/>\nshow that at any time the defendants agreed to pay any higher rate of<br \/>\ninterest than the agreed rate on the said three loans taken by them. We<br \/>\nmust point out at once that this observation of the trial court runs<br \/>\ncontrary to the very agreements Ex. P-I, P-5 and P-l 1. Further, the<br \/>\nacknowledgements made by the defendants in 1978 also indicate that the<br \/>\ndefendants acknowledged their liability of the amount due and the amount<br \/>\nhad been calculated on the basis of the enhanced rate of interest.<br \/>\nObservations of the trial court that the Bank arbitrarily increased the<br \/>\nrate of interest and charged the higher rate also do not stand to the<br \/>\nreason in the light of the evidence placed on record including the afore-<br \/>\nmentioned documents. In our view, the trial court was wrong in saying that<br \/>\nthe interest could not be enhanced without the consent of the defendants on<br \/>\nthe face of the agreements to Ex. P-l, P-5 and P-l I. The rate of interest<br \/>\nwas enhanced as per the agreement between the parties and there was no<br \/>\nquestion of taking separate consent from the defendants again.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court while holding that the party is bound to pay the interest at<br \/>\nthe agreed rate took the view that the Bank could not automatically charge<br \/>\nthe increased rate of interest merely on the basis of rise of interest on<br \/>\naccount of RBI circulars. It is not a case of automatically charging the<br \/>\nincreased rate of interest; charge of higher rate is based on agreement<br \/>\nbetween the parties. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that<br \/>\nthe principles of natural justice were violated on the ground that the<br \/>\ndefendants were not put on notice before enhancing the rate of interest<br \/>\nwhen the parties are bound by the terms of the contract. The application of<br \/>\nprinciple of natural justice cannot be read into the express terms of<br \/>\ncontract. The other reason given by the High Court to affirm the decree of<br \/>\nthe trial court was that the plaintiff Bank violated the<br \/>\ncirculars\/instructions given by the head office and as such the plaintiff<br \/>\ncould not claim higher rate of interest. We are not in a position to<br \/>\napprove this view of the High Court. The instructions given by the head<br \/>\noffice to the branches were only for their guidance and to safeguard the<br \/>\ninterest of the Bank in case of dispute. At any rate, these instructions<br \/>\ncannot vary the terms of agreement between the parties. In other words,<br \/>\nthey could not alter the terms of Ex. P-1, P-5 and P-II.\n<\/p>\n<p>We may add that in the light of the acknowledgement of their liability by<br \/>\nthe defendants in 1978, it is not open to them now to deny to make payment<br \/>\nof the amount due to the Bank on the ground that higher rate of interest<br \/>\ncould not be charged. It is clear from the judgment of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/49975\/\">Hiralal and Ors. v. Badkulal and Ors.,<\/a> [1953] 4 SCR 758 that an unqualified<br \/>\nacknowledgement of liability as in the present case by a party not only<br \/>\nsaves the period of limitation but also gives a cause of action to the<br \/>\nplaintiff to base its claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the circumstances, in our view, the trial court as well as the High<br \/>\nCourt were clearly in error in refusing interest as claimed by the<br \/>\nplaintiff Bank. Hence, this appeal is entitled to succeed. The impugned<br \/>\njudgment and decree confirming the judgment and decree of trial court so<br \/>\nfar they relate to refusal of interest at the rate claimed by Bank is set<br \/>\naside and the decree of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court stand<br \/>\nmodified to that extent. In other words, the plaintiff s suit is decreed<br \/>\nfor Rs. 16,15,091.05 instead of only for Rs. 9,82,263.47 and the decree of<br \/>\nthe trial court is modified on this basis while maintaining the current and<br \/>\nfuture rates of interests as ordered by the trial court. The appeals are<br \/>\ndisposed of accordingly. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002 Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 972 of 1995 PETITIONER: SYNDICATE BANK RESPONDENT: R. VEERANNA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/12\/2002 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(5) SCR 600 The following [&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-28796","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>Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002 - 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\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-11T17:26:08+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\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-11T17:26:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1779,\"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\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002\",\"name\":\"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-11T17:26:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002 - 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\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-11T17:26:08+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\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-11T17:26:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002"},"wordCount":1779,"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\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002","name":"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-11T17:26:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-r-veeranna-and-ors-on-19-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Syndicate Bank vs R. Veeranna And Ors on 19 December, 2002"}]},{"@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\/28796","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=28796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}