{"id":34335,"date":"2010-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-13T05:44:26","modified_gmt":"2016-05-13T00:14:26","slug":"sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar And Adi<\/div>\n
INT?\ufb01CHKH\u00a7COURT(M?KARNATAKA\nCHKHHTBENCHATCRHBARGA\n\nDATED THIS THE 27m DAY OF SEPTE:MB\u00a3:R,.f2Oj1.O~v-V_\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUS'F1CE.N.KiUMAi\u00e9\u00bb\u00ab    A'\n\nAND\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUSTI_CE SUEHASH'   \"\n\nMFA No.30O9.1\/2008  A_ \" O'\nMFA N'e_.13m 73\/2O':>8;Sf'_.C1\nL 'A      =\nMISCCVL. 153316\/201-0 3: IA: \/'20Os-- FOR STAY\n\nIN MFA       \n\nSI1vLA.RAD\"\u00a7\u00a57;' SAMPATH   '\n\nS \/O VALLABE?fDAS_.   A \n\nAGED ABOUT  YEZARS\n\nR\/O L~\"'1.46, NiJA\u00a3_.IN~GAPPA COLONY\n\n \" \u00ab   LRs..\n\nA 1'{a)'-T'CO12Ar\u00a7 7.S;\"'SAMPATH\n\nA \/O_LA\"1jE SHARAD V. SAMPATH\nAGEI)  YEARS\nOCC::BUS1NESS\n\n A .-E;\/O\"NIJAI.INGAPPA COLONY\nV._R'A1CHUR\n\n\" W) PRAGNESH SSAMPATH\n\nS \/O LATE SHARAD V. SAMPATH\nAGED 40 YEARS\n\nOCC: BUSINESS\n\nR\/O NIJALINGAPPA COLONY\n\nRA_ICHUR\n\ni{\/\/\n\n\n\n'NJ\n\nANUSUYA S. SAMPATH\nW\/O LATE SHARAD V. SAMPATH\nAGED AEOIIT 68 YEARS\n\nOCC; SIISINESS\n\nR\/O NIJALINGAPPA COLONY\nRMCHUR\n\n3. RAJANIKANTH P. TOPPRANI\n\nS\/O PARAMANAND \n\nAGE: MAJOR\n\nOCC: BUSINESS   I .\nR\/O NIJALINGAPPA COLONY\nRAICHUR  .  \n\nDEAD BY LRs.,\n\n3(1) RAMABAI~IEN_  I   I \nW\/O LA\"I*E IA\u00bb III _ *'IKANT}:I TOPPRANI\nAGE:     \nR\/0.12., IvIA';;IAI.A,'<IvII' TE'MPI;.E STREET\nBIIUEAEI-IAI"EES;AIA;*--ABOI\\\/IEAY\n\n3&1) KR'\u00a3SHNAI?.AJ\u00ab 'A     M \nS \/O' LATE I"{AJANIK"A_N'TH TOPPRANI\nAGE: 40  * "\nIa\/O, I2, 1'viA_IfiALAXMI TEMPLE STREET\n..' f:3~H_U_LABHAI DESAI, BOMBAY  APPELLANTS\n\n'    I. :'C{I\u00a7y*1I'Sz\u00a7i: SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADV.,)\n\n  'AIIARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL COIRPORATION\n=  HAVING 'ITS HEAD OFFICE AT No.25\n 'M.Q.ROAD, BANGALORE\n IOj;R,EPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER\n"   (LEGAL RECOVERY}  RESPONIDENT\n\n{By Sri ASHOK S KINAGI, AD'.\/'.,)\n\nVI\n\n \n\n\n\nFINANCIAL\n\n3\n\nMFA FILED UNDER SECTION 32(9) OF STATE\nCODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE_ THE\n\nJUDGMENT AND ORDER OATEO 26.7.2008 PASSED\nBY THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE. RAICHUR 1N._'C;'wr_rL\nMISC. No.30\/1993.   E  \n\nIN MFA No.30173\/2008:   \n\nBETWEEN\n\nI.\n\nJAYANTH V SAMPATH \nS\/O.VALLABHADAS   \n\nAGE: 54 YEARS \nOCC:BUs1NESS ,   \nR\/O.L- 143, NIJALI"N_GAPP\u00a7' YCQLONY \nRAICHUR V     "\n\nW\/O.  V V Y\n\nAGE: 33 YEARS C    \nOCC':'EvBU:'3INE:\u00a33'S    \nR}iO.:_,Y143*;..N1JAL:NCAPpA COLONY\nRAICHUR Y _     \n\n    'V \n\n  \n\n, S\/ O; VALLABHADAS\n _ V-.CAG;?:3: 35% YEARS'"'\n' V. 4' 'OC,C:Y.BUS.INESS\n\nA " Y.r, BANGALORE\n\nREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER  \n(LEGAL RECOVERY]  RESPQNE_IEN.T\n\n(By Sri ASHOK S KJNAGI, AD\\;,f'   A\n\nMFA FILED UNDER SECTI\u00bbO--N\u00a2 NOE GVSTATE A\n\nEINANCLAL CODE PRAYING  A.SI.D'E'Iw--LTHE\n\nJUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED *:26.'?.20_O8.PAE3_S'ED,\nBY THE PRL. DISTRICT J'U.QGE,'A.RAECH'{;JR.;vI.NWC;IVIL._*\n\nMISC. No.30\/1993.\n\nMISCCVL. 153316120 I.VAO\"\"FI.LED.._UNDER SECTION\n5 OF THE LIMITATION' ACT TO CONDONE\nTHE DELAY OF 16 DAYS*I5N _...PRF;FEERRING THE\nAPPEAL. V.   * \n\nIA4I'\/2Oof:3 F\"fLED'\u00bb.V'UNDERV ORDER 41 RULE 5\nPRAYING TO' EAGPASS ._I1'JTERIM ORDER THEREEY\nSTAYING  QPERATION*- AND EXECUTION OF THE\nJUDGIVIENT DATED\u00bb',\"2~6.?.2008 PASSED BY THE\nPRLDISTRICT JUDGE OF RAICHUR IN\nCIVL-L.M1SC.30\/._1993,V DURING THE PENDENCY OF\n\n *  THE  MFA.\" \"\"\" \n\n MISC.CVL.153316\/2010 3: IA-\n\nI\/2QO8,,-COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY.\n\nU  J., IDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\u00a7VIiSCICV1.}53316\/2010 in MFA NO30173\/2008 is
\nfiieci to  the delay Of 16 days in preI13r’riI1gg tI1i.S<\/p>\n
E’:1ppE’;’.\u00a3:\ufb01. AppI_iCatiOI1  I101. Opposed. Acoepiilhg the ciause<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
gtinning unit”; and additional loan of ?’5.6 lakhs was also
\nsanctioned on 7.3.1984, as a guarantee for the
\nrepayment of the said loans, the Company exetiuted the
\nnecessary agreement and also executed
\nin favour of Corporation. At the request
\nrespondents No.1 to “7 gave their for-
\nrepayment of the said loan and
\ndated 31.3.1984. The oeea,,\u00a7r.,,guafantee,,lex\u00e9t\u00a7;it’ec1’i:is all
\ncontinuing deed of gu-arantee”‘tor’–al}\u00bb,.an1oun’ts advanced
\nincluding the interim  ‘amounts to be<\/p>\n
advanced by.-lthe toij’ the Company.\n<\/p>\n
Corporation Ad’e.manded._seyerail times the amount due by
\nthe Company, notices ,_\\yereVissued. lnspite of the same,<\/p>\n
Co11:pai’:y i”ai’ied”toV’ pay the amount. Corporation<\/p>\n
 power under Section 29 of S.F.C.Act has<\/p>\n
 of Company. Ultimately, the assets<\/p>\n
.jree.oyered. on 21.10.1992. The said amount. was not
\n.’  sL.1lftiCfient. to satisfy the Claim of the Corporation. The<\/p>\n
~ “Corporation issued a iiotice on 20.10.1992 invcikixig the<\/p>\n
of the o,\u00a2%np’5,11y were sold and a sum of ‘(’17 lakhs was<\/p>\n
personal gua.ra11t:ee of respo1’1de.n_t.s l to 7 calling upon<\/p>\n
them to pay a sum of ?46,tiO,655.25 paise as the<\/p>\n
LL,\/’<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
arno1.111t due as on 20.9.1992 with interest at 15% pa.
\ncompounded at quart.erl_V rests till the date of
\nrealisation. The said notice was served on someof the
\nrespondents and some of the respondents hafvefi”‘eift:i.gie.d.
\nBefore that, respondents I to 3 had\n<\/p>\n
0.S.No.48\/1986 on the file
\nwhich is re-numbered as
\nCivil Judge [Jr.Dr1] for a   it
\ndeed dated 31.3.1984:  “Cor}poration
\nis Contesting the still pending.\n<\/p>\n
When F\u20acSpOI1_d.63r1t’S No.1,’  tjomake payment<\/p>\n
inspite, of  -Way of a legal notice, the
\nCorporation was  to file the petition under<\/p>\n
Se(:tii)ii Slfii\u00e9aafiof State Financial Corporation Act, for<\/p>\n
e1’1Vforee_n1Aei1tA”o.f the liability on respondents \/ sureties. In<\/p>\n
A . zlppeared t.hro1,:gh their Advocate. Respondents No.4 to
\n“also appeared through their Advocate. However. it is
\n resporident No.2 has filed detailed St\u00a311L\u20ac1’11\u20ac3T1’\u00a3 of<\/p>\n
 objections by (::(mt:est’.i.n.g the claim. some have filed<\/p>\n
 notice, respondents No.1 to 3<\/span><\/p>\n
sta.iem.ent of ohjedions. some others adopti1’1g the said<\/p>\n
Si”aiEEIIiel}i.. by reii.e::_’ai:.ir’1g whai.. has been said in the said<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
st.at:ement. They have raised the several ctontentions in
\nthe said stat.ernent denying the claim. They contended
\nthe deed of guarantee become enforceable, the moment<\/p>\n
there is a default in making the payments'”by-\u00ab._.t*he<\/p>\n
principai debtors. Therefore. the petition.-uhtiiedyjitn’theM’<\/p>\n
year 1993 is cleariy barred by: “th–e_1a%.iv <\/p>\n
Notice dated 20.10.1992 eannotibe <\/p>\n
computing the iimitation.Vt”3eeo\\nd1y, V_1’t’w:as dc:-ointendediii<\/p>\n
Section 31(1.)[aa] of th–ezSFCi. ._introdu’cedV: into the
\nAct by Act No.43 of   execution of<\/p>\n
guarantee deyediiyjdated  the said<\/p>\n
provisions .   ap_fi}ioa–b1e to them. if at 2111, the
\nCorporation iwan.ts””to  the money, it is by way of<\/p>\n
a sepaiate everi otherwise. suit is not fiied within 3<\/p>\n
 the date of said amendment. Therefore, on<\/p>\n
  the suit is barred by law of iimitation.\n<\/p>\n
  ‘denied the amount. claimed. T hey contended<\/p>\n
 is sold behind their back and without:\n<\/p>\n
.  riotiee to them for the paltry sum, whereas the market<\/p>\n
 ‘”V’al11e of the property  aroimd ?’5O lakhs. Thus_. they<\/p>\n
have been put to great loss. ‘1’heref()re. they sought for<\/p>\n
dismissal of the ap_pI.ieatio1’1.\n<\/p>\n
4. The District Court: on the basis of the
\naforesaid pleadings framed the foilowing two  for
\nconsideration:~<\/p>\n
enforce the Ziab\u00bbil\u00bbi\u00a3y’ f or;'”*.\u00a7i’ii\u20ac-j’,
\nresp0ndents\/sureiies: ‘\/or Ai.h”e._ }:imoLJ;:t’t.___
\nciaimed in the pei”if,oiof:__ i  “re\u00a3:;uiI’ed ‘
\nunder Section; _31[I’j{aa;’ q,;f7* 1Sic_1te
\nFinancial C0rpora_iio.Jji Act; I__95.l_?’, V’ V i<\/p>\n
(1) Whether the appeliamfs are <\/p>\n
{2} ‘\/Vhai’ order?\n<\/p>\n
5. The AV_CorpoAr217t:’i_on of its claim
\nexamined   Basavaraj &
\n  and produced 17
\ndocunieritsii as Exs P1 to P17′. On
\nbehalf ofu\ufb01he one Rakesh Sampath was<\/p>\n
e’*am’ined as R’.Tf.V1vanci no documents were produced.\n<\/p>\n
 District Judge on appreciation of<\/p>\n
the Vaiforesaid; ‘oral and documentary evidence on record<\/p>\n
‘and also taking into consideration the Various<\/p>\n
 of the Apex Court as well a.s our High Court<\/p>\n
  on by the parties held i:hai:_. the suit: is in time, the<\/p>\n
(‘application  in time and it is not barred. The cause of<\/p>\n
action in so far as the ;,\u00a7;1.:a1*a1’it,(‘3rs are (.T()1’}C(:’I’I1\u20acCI arise<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
towards principal and the entire Claim is regarding
\ninterest and therefore it was ()O1′}i\u20ac}’1d(;’.d the statement of<\/p>\n
accounts produced in the case do not reflect’ the ‘C<_Jrr_ect<\/p>\n
state of affairs and the liability foisted on  H<\/p>\n
such Statement. of Accounts is illegal '\u00bb<\/p>\n
be the basis for allowing the ap:plicatlig)_Th4.'–ll,.'i' 1.ierei1:ire_, "aria<\/p>\n
the aforesaid grounds, the,Or.der Ibassed <\/p>\n
Court requires to be set aside '*a:hd theiapgjlicatfioiq is to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8. Per.-Qcontija,  for the<\/p>\n
C0 ora~tior.1uS’u alerted-the ir:l1″”‘1;1″”fi’1ed order.
\nT13’  PP,  _ 5<\/p>\n
9. ll  in  aforesaid facts and the<\/p>\n
rival ;c0’i”2tent,i0’11.s,’the })0ints that arise for consideration<\/p>\n
viii t.h’is a”p:pea”i._are as under:\u00ab<\/p>\n
 }’v4:””‘_!2i:\/_liie:’ti’i.er the claim by the State F’inanc1’al
\n ~ Corporatioii is barred by time as<\/p>\n
 coritended by the appellants?\n<\/p>\n
 ‘{2} Whet’her the appellants are liable to pay
\nthe an’1ounf: as claimed in the<\/p>\n
application?’ 3<\/p>\n
1.5<\/p>\n
amount arose, on such idefault, both against the
\nprincipal debtor as well as against the guarantors.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, for the purpose of eom_p1.:iat.ionH <\/p>\n
Limitation. that date which has to be  _<\/p>\n
consideration and not the date of seconci-\u00bb..n:otiC–e: datedw it<\/p>\n
20.10.1992 as per EX P10. C3ou_r:t___:I’iasl<\/p>\n
taken 20.10.1992 as the starting   <\/p>\n
so far as the guarantors are therefore it
\nrequires to be set aside:   __on the day. the
\nguarantee deedwas   1984, and as
\non that d.a_,\\\/to Y   under the Act
\nenabliiJ_:’v1li\u00a7’–V__  [to proceed against the
\nguarantlorsll before  Court. Such a provision<\/p>\n
Was’;ii1t.1’odue’e.d”oriiy in the year 1985 by way of<\/p>\n
\u00bbam’e’1:dn1e.ntL\u00ab.._even if the said amended provision is<\/p>\n
 three years from the said date, these<\/p>\n
21p}:i’Iieai:.i:onv:-itought: to have been filed. Admittedly, these<\/p>\n
[applications are filed in the year 1993. Seen from any<\/p>\n
.  angle. the applications are barred by time.\n<\/p>\n
12. Reliance was placed on the Judgrrierit: of ihe<\/p>\n
Apex Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE<\/p>\n
A ‘ = .. _V ttatailityijvo}””_sureties had crystaiised t.hen.\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. ASHOK KAGARWAL 8:
\nOTHERS reported in 2006 SAR (Civil) 399, xarhefte on
\nthe facts of the case, the Apex Court held as    p
\n“‘5. Article 137 of the I.iI}1iI(1._I,t’_t\u00a7)E1?;VV  ._ it
\napplies in thefacts of the pre\u00e9ercttc case;
\nArticle 13 7 is applied, the  ‘:ntto,ved’
\nby the Appettant Corpor’a_tion on
\nI992for proceeding aggtaiiist ‘VtheV”sts.retiesVVft.e.
\nthe respondents’ ~herein}W  jctearlyh t\ufb01arred
\nby time and the   \u00abcorrect in
\nholding so..a vTo recat-tithe’ present
\ncase, the   V  ment o f the
\narnoitnt   against the
\n ‘that’  ‘ M\/s.V\u20acrystat Marketing
\nPrivate   ‘March, 1983 and the
\napplicatjon’v._tirtrier”}:’3ections 31 and 32 of the
\nState t4I3*tn_ar1ci-:it ACJovrporatior’r tuas filed against<\/p>\n
v_’:”3’\u00abthepAV’s-aid borrower on 25*” October, 1983. The<\/p>\n
 V.  The amendment under Section 31 of
\n“t.he’W:_State Financial Corporation Act which<\/p>\n
V ” ‘authorises the State Financiat Corporations to\n<\/p>\n
 –take action under Section 3] of the Act. _for
\nenforcing the liability again.i~’;t: the suret”ies.
\nwas brought about in the g_.;ear 1985 by<\/p>\n
intmditction of sub~seCtiori {aa} in Section<\/p>\n
31(1) Qf the Act. Even after thiss’ aniendment<\/p>\n
kw\/.\n<\/p>\n
 _ ll:  relying on these two Judgments, it was
\n we ::?.ontie_nded. when once a demand was made ag_\u00a7a1’nst the<\/p>\n
“Principal Debtor, the anaount. get. cirystalised and the<\/p>\n
.19<\/p>\n
by the industrial concern in paying any
\ninst’at’lrnent or the Corporation requires the
\nindustrial concern to make immediate
\nrepayment of any loan under Section 30 arid.’
\nthe industrial concern fails to make
\nrepayment”. In the case, both these  is
\nare specified inasrnuch as there is”‘a’
\ncomrnitted by the industrial:iyeorlieern.2.:
\nCompany herein, in payiny.__ the instralllrnent  ”
\ninasmuch as paymerit\u00ab,o_j?.all
\nare defaulted. Secoridlyi: ‘Qorporatioiihas
\ncalled upon the ‘in_dustriali.eoncernrto make the
\nrepayment by the year
\n1987’ itsyeelfg ‘eoe’n”faccording to
\nthe  pre’S\u00a7;r’iptiO’ri:ft’ylaidlmdoum under
\nSlectioril.l3″1..’f-t’he,rigtht– to” proceed against the
\nsurety for  liability of the surety
\n_ has  upon-  breach being: corrJnit’t’ed
\n lo”an’ee~~-\u00abin paying the installment or
\n _vVwhen\u00ab.the___Corporation required or when the
\n called upon the Company to
\nn1al+ce_fthe payment” of the loan amount by<\/p>\n
issuing notice in the year 1987. ”\n<\/p>\n
cause of action to proceed eig,{aiI’1st the S1,1.T(‘f{‘.I’CS under<\/p>\n
gv\/,<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
the Deed of Guarantee accrues and the period of three
\nyears has to be calculated from the said date i.e.. from
\n1985. the applicatiorl \ufb01led in the year 1993 is _c:_Iear1y<\/p>\n
barred by time”\n<\/p>\n
14. Per contra. learzzeti Cou_a.sejI’=,Vfor..  ‘V<\/p>\n
Corporation relied on the Judgijner;.t.’g’o1″\n<\/p>\n
in the case of    <\/p>\n
CHLANNAVEERAPPA BELEEI’ oTHEI1usi_’ reported in
\nAIR 2009 SC 1874i._._'”wi1ere  Court held as<\/p>\n
under\u00bb    _  V<\/p>\n
 ~~~~   tiabitiiy depends upon<\/p>\n
the -.  “\u00a33-oritract. A continuing
\ngaarar1tee”v.   from an ordinary<\/p>\n
_ guarahtee.’ There aiso a differerice between
\n‘3\u00a5:.a3_._:g:.tarariiee ——– -\u00abwhich stipulates that the
\n  liable to pay only on a demand
\n  eifeditor. and a guarantee which does
\n not eoriiairsz such a condition. Further,
\ndepending on the terms of guarantee, the<\/p>\n
it ‘d”=,_liability of a guarantor may be limited to a
\n “bmt:ic’iiiar sum. Instead of the liability being
\nto the same extent as that of the principal
\ndebtor. The iiabitiiy to pay rnay arise. on the
\nprincipal debtor and gi.z.aran.ior. at the same<\/p>\n
time or at d if\/E:-?rer1i points of time. A claim<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
may be even time\u00abbarred against the principal
\ndebtor, but still ext\/’orceable against the,<\/p>\n
guarantor, The parties may agree that.\n<\/p>\n
liability of a guarantor shall arise at  1-\n<\/p>\n
point of ante than that of the__ T<\/p>\n
debtor. ”\n<\/p>\n
15. In View of thelaforesaiti .legal’-.po,.\u00a7itionj, ash’<\/p>\n
enunciated by the  Court and
\nthis Court, the law onl_t}ie’ well settled
\nwhen the prii1cipal  in payment
\nfor the    is made by the
\ncreditor  sai’ci”lamou11t as a rule i.e.,
\nstartiiig_poi_i1tVof against both principal debtor<\/p>\n
and the gi1aranto1f._ However, it is subject to<\/p>\n
  the parties. If the contract<\/p>\n
  against the guarantor before he<\/p>\n
islea’llled_u’plo::i’ to pay the said amount, unless such a<\/p>\n
r.\u00a7iemai1*cl “:.;’s made, the cause of action against the<\/p>\n
‘.gtiara’ntor would not arise till such demand. However.\n<\/p>\n
   on? the day, the demand was made to the gua1’ant.or, the<\/p>\n
 ctause of action. against the principle borrower’ should be<\/p>\n
live. if the loan is barter} by time on the date of<\/p>\n
 ‘~  borrowe_r has mort<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
demand, the said demand would not revive a time
\nbarred debt: against the gizarantors. But on the day. the<\/p>\n
demand was made, if the loan was live. therea_fter=,–___even<\/p>\n
if the limitation prescribed for proceedingpag\u00e9amst<\/p>\n
principal debtor is time barred that would”-not   <\/p>\n
the way of enforcing the ciaim:”aga’i’i3st–.pthe.lgu_a.rai’itee’;.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, in order to find out  a claini’ -is <\/p>\n
by limitation or not, what isv-vr.t’o–i,be seen is _”‘\u00a3:he’.;cont1’act
\nbetween the parties -and depeiiidirullxg-._Qn snlch” contract
\nentered into the periodlof:  be Computed<\/p>\n
under Article: the  V<\/p>\n
116. l’ in  the loan was advanced
\nin the year”-\u00ab1l9’84l.  in dispute that the principal<\/p>\n
.’.*.’..r.\\.\n<\/p>\n
gaged his properties as a security for<\/p>\n
 due-v.repa}:fnient. of the loan. It is in 1986 as per Ex<\/p>\n
P.l*l__Da  is made against the principal debtor<\/p>\n
‘V.,CEl1lll’1g”‘]v.1\u00a3}f;0T1 him to pay the installment, which are due.
\n clear in the said legal notice, if those
\n de?fault.ed installments are not made. the Corporation<\/p>\n
 would be constrained to invoke Section 29 of the Act to<\/p>\n
recall the entire loan and thereafter to proceed under<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
“1. If at any time c::lefault’ shall be
\nmade by the Company in the payment of the
\nprincipal sums of ?’10.18.000\/– & \u20ac356,000\/~
\nand interests commitment charges and\/
\nother moneys for the time being due
\nCorporation under the Security Dotrujnertt’$_’:”
\nthe Guarantors on demcmcimshall pay
\nCorporation the whole ofsych:pri.r1ctpal’  C
\ninterest. commitment vcharye__s1″and\/orig other
\nmoneys, which shall  be
\nCorporation as ajoresaict  xuwill. C irtdenirtyy
\nand keep inderrtrttfted  C’orpora~t’tori against
\nall loss of principal <\/p>\n
charge orjotrhergj n1oneys4V”s.;\u00e9(;ttre\u00e9t’ under the<\/p>\n
 “all costs charges and
\ne9;pe’n-sest”‘Lo-hatsoeyer {as between attorney
\nand client)   “JCorporat’ion may incur
\nby reagaron anyhalejault on the part of the<\/p>\n
Wgcoriwpany “or.,.in..ftling any legal proceedings<\/p>\n
  aglainst’*~tI1e company and\/ or the Guarantors<\/p>\n
V  _for.V4the reccvvery of the aforesaid amounts. “‘<\/p>\n
1’7.,y__A3 ‘l’herefore, it is clear. it is only on the<\/p>\n
   debtor committing default, in payment of<\/p>\n
u”-_mo1r1ey due to the Corporation and after 2:1 demand is<\/p>\n
\u00ab made to the guarantors to make t.h\u00a33 said paymer1t. if the<\/p>\n
_g’1.1arar1t,<')rs failed to make pay'me:1t.. the cause: of.:a1<:tio:1<\/p>\n
  brought. to sale. sold in public auction<\/p>\n
mi. a   ?l7 lakhs is recovered, it is after<\/p>\n
h  ,.demandvV'was made against the guarantors. For the first
\n_' i:i1ne on 20.10.1992 as per EX P10, the said demand is<\/p>\n
inade in conformiizy with clause {1} of the Guarantee<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
to proceed against. the guarantors, would arise.
\nTherefore. under the terms of contract, the cause of
\naction to proceed against the principal debtor and the
\nguaraiuor is not one and the same and cause
\nagainst the guarantors is depend on a
\nagainst, the principal debtor and’~t.he
\nconf1rnit.t,ing a default and after
\nCorporation making a derna.n:d._\u00bbagai11st’
\nand only when the giiarantors ddefa–V1lt~LVE it could
\nbe said the Cause   against the<\/p>\n
guarantors. lt.:i;s.__jn   issue of Ex: P1,<\/p>\n
admitt.edly._AVpriiicipai’-debt.or did not pay the amount
\ndue under the  It is on record, proceedings<\/p>\n
are initiated under Section 29 of the Act, assets of the<\/p>\n
dedt’ictio.n.to”:?17 lakhs, it is for the balance amount, a<\/p>\n
Deed. Wheii. the g;\u00a71,i:\u00ab.u’ai’itc1)i’ did not make the paynierit.\n<\/p>\n
_l_993 appiication is filed ll.I’idf:?I’ Sections 30 and $31 of<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
the Act. Therefore, applying the principles enunciated<\/p>\n
in the aforesaid Judgments. the cause of action in far<\/p>\n
as the guarantors are Concerned, did arise
\nyear l992 and in the year 1993, the
\nbeen filed is well within t.:t1ree’\u00ab.yearsr A
\ncontemplated under Article
\nOn the day, the demand
\nthe principal debtor” date of
\nborrowing is 1984!’ it  mortgaged.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, tog. 316 Principal<\/p>\n
debtor, thew  . ‘off;li’mi,ta’tioi’1A was upto 1996.\n<\/p>\n
‘l’herefore,_  in the year 1992, the loan
\nwas live.’ Even the application is filed for<\/p>\n
recon-ferye..agairistthe guarantor, the loan was live and<\/p>\n
attliereforeitheiDistrict Court on a proper appreciation of<\/p>\n
Cr_a’I’._ :arid.l””~dooi,ir15ent.ary evidence on record and also<\/p>\n
 _  iilind, the law laid down by the Apex Court
\nH  \u00bb%:tIi(lst’h\u20acVvI:”llgl1 Court and correctly applying the law to the
\nf\u00e9ir.?;ts’of the case. has come to the c:o1’1e1usior1 that the<\/p>\n
” \u00e9ipplieat:ioI1 is in time. V<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
23. In View of the fact: that, the appealw
\nI\\\/IFA30173\/2008 it:s<3if is dismissed on merits, IA-
\nI\/ZOO8 for stay does not survive for cionsideljatioia.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, IAwI\/2008 for stay is also dismissedjf<\/p>\n
     sa\/#
\ns-JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 September, 2010 Author: N.Kumar And Adi INT?\ufb01CHKH\u00a7COURT(M?KARNATAKA CHKHHTBENCHATCRHBARGA DATED THIS THE 27m DAY OF SEPTE:MB\u00a3:R,.f2Oj1.O~v-V_ PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUS’F1CE.N.KiUMAi\u00e9\u00bb\u00ab A’ AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTI_CE SUEHASH’ ” MFA No.30O9.1\/2008 A_ ” O’ MFA N’e_.13m 73\/2O’:>8;Sf’_.C1 L ‘A = MISCCVL. 153316\/201-0 3: IA: \/’20Os– […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial ... on 27 September, 2010 - 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\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial ... on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-13T00:14:26+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-13T00:14:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2711,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial ... on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-13T00:14:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial ... on 27 September, 2010 - 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\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial ... on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-13T00:14:26+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-13T00:14:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010"},"wordCount":2711,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010","name":"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial ... on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-13T00:14:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharad-v-sampath-vs-karnataka-state-financial-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sharad V Sampath vs Karnataka State Financial … on 27 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/34335","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=34335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}