{"id":35632,"date":"1992-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992"},"modified":"2016-05-16T05:56:19","modified_gmt":"2016-05-16T00:26:19","slug":"punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992","title":{"rendered":"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1815, \t\t  1992 SCR  (2) 528<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSURENDRA PRASAD SINHA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 1815\t\t  1992 SCR  (2) 528\n 1993 SCC  Supl.  (1) 499 JT 1992 (3)\t 46\n 1992 SCALE  (1)926\n\n\nACT:\n     Limitation\t Act, 1963-Section 3-Whether bars the  right\nto which a remedy related-Right to enforce debt by  judicial\nprocess-Scope  of-Time barred debt-Realisation of-Filing  of\nsuit to recover debt-Creditor's obligation.\n     Penal  Code,  1860-Section\t 405-Action in\tterms  of  a\ncontract-Whether  amounts  to criminal breach  of  trust  or\nmisappropriation-Creditor   in\t possession   of   security-\nAdjustment of debt due from security-Justification of.\n     Penal   Code,   1860-Section   409,   109\/114-Complaint\npetition-Maintainability-Duty\tof  Magistrate,\t  indicated-\nAccused to be legally responsible for the offences  charged-\nMagistrate's  satisfaction  of\tprima  facie   case-Criminal\njustice-Objects of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     On\t 5.5.1984, the Bank-Appellant No.1, gave a  loan  of\nRS.15,000  to one S.N. Dubey.  The respondent and  his\twife\nexecuted  a Security Bond, as guarantors and handed  over  a\nfixed  Deposit\tReceipt for a sum of Rs.  24,000  which\t was\nvalued at Rs. 41,292 on its maturity on 1.11.1988.\n     The  principal debtor defaulted marking payment of\t the\ndebt.\tWhen the respondent's F.D. matured, the\t Manager  of\nthe  Bank (appellant No.5) adjusting a sum  of\tRs.27,037.60\ndue and payable by the principal debtor as on December\t1988\nand the balance sum of Rs.14,254.40 was credited to the S.B.\nAccount of the respondent.\n     The  respondent filed a private complaint\tagainst\t the\nappellants  in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial  Magistrate\nu\/ss.409,109\/114, IPC, alleging that the debt became  barred\nby  limitation\tas on 5.5.1987; that the  liability  of\t the\nrespondent  being  co-extensive with that of  the  principal\ndebtor,\t  his  liability  also\tstood  extinguished  as\t  on\n5.5.1987;  that\t without taking any action  to\trecover\t the\namount from the principal debtor within the period\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       529\nof limitation, on 14.1.1989, the Branch Manager credited  to\nhis  S.B. Account only Rs.14,254.00 on the maturity  of\t his\nF.D.R.\tand thereby the appellants criminally embezzled\t the\namount.\n    The\t appellants  filed this Criminal Appeal\t by  special\nleave challenging the High Court's order declining to  quash\nthe  complaint\tfiled by the respondent\t u\/ss.409,  109\/114,\nIPC.\n     Allowing the appeal of the Bank, this Court,\n     HELD  : 1.01. The rules of limitation are not meant  to\ndestroy\t the  rights  of  the parties.\t Section  3  of\t the\nLimitation  Act only bars the remedy, but does\tnot  destroy\nthe  right  which the remedy relates to.  The right  to\t the\ndebt continues to exist notwithstanding the remedy is barred\nby the limitation.  Only exception in which the remedy\talso\nbecomes\t barred\t by limitation is the  right  is  destroyed.\n[532E-F]\n     1.02. Though the right to enforce the debt by  judicial\nprocess\t is  barred, the right to debt\tremains.   The\ttime\nbarred debt does not cease to exist by reason of s.3.\tThat\nright can be exercised in any other manner than by means  of\na  suit.   The debt is not extinguished, but the  remedy  to\nenforce the liability is destroyed. [532G]\n     1.03. What s.3. refers is only to the remedy but not to\nthe right of the creditors.  Such debt continues to subsists\nso  long as it is not paid.  It is not obligatory to file  a\nsuit to recover the debt. [532G-H]\n     2.01.  Action  in terms of the  contract  expressly  or\nimplied is a negation of criminal breach of trust defined in\ns.405  and  punishable\tunder s.409 I.P.C.   It\t is  neither\ndishonest, nor misappropriation. [533C]\n     2.02.  The\t creditor  when he is in  possession  of  an\nadequate  security, the debt due could be adjusted from\t the\nsecurity, in his possession and custody.  [533A]\n     2.03.  The\t bank had in its possession  the  F.D.R.  as\nguarantee for due payment of the debt and bank\tappropriated\nthe amount towards the debt due and payable by the principal\ndebtor. [533D]\n     2.04.  The respondent and his wife stood guarantors  to\nthe principal debtor, jointly executed the security bond and\nentrusted the F.D.R. as\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       530\nsecurity to adjust the outstanding debt from it at maturity.\nTherefore,  though the remedy to recover the debt  from\t the\nprincipal  debtor  is barred by\t limitation,  the  liability\nstill  subsists.   In  terms of the  contract  the  bank  is\nentitled to appropriate the debt due and credit the  balance\namount to the saving bank account of the respondent. Thereby\nthe  appellant\tdid  not act in violation of  any  law,\t nor\nconverted  the amount entrusted to them dishonestly for\t any\npurpose. [533B-C]\n     3.01.  The\t Magistrate without  adverting\twhether\t the\nallegation in the complaint prima facie makes out an offence\ncharged\t for, obviously, in a mechanical manner, issued\t the\nprocess\t  against  all\tthe  appellants.   The\tHigh   Court\ncommitted grave error in declining to quash the complaint on\nthe  finding that the Bank acted prima facie high  handedly.\n[533E]\n     3.02.  Judicial process should not be an instrument  of\noppression or needless harassment.   The complaint was\tlaid\nimpleading  the Chairman, the Managing Director of the\tBank\nby  name and a host of officers.  There lies  responsibility\nand  duty  on the Magistracy to find whether  the  concerned\naccused\t should\t be  legally  responsible  for\tthe  offence\ncharged\t for.\tOnly  on  satisfying  that  the\t law   casts\nliability or creates offence, against the juristic person or\nthe persons impleaded, then only process would be issued. At\nthat  stage the court would be circumspect and judicious  in\nexercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts\nand circumstances into consideration before issuing process,\nleast it would be an instrument in the hands of the  private\ncomplainant  as vendetta to harass the\tpersons\t needlessly.\nVindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and\norder  in  the\tsociety are the prime  objects\tof  criminal\njustice\t but  it would not be the means\t to  wreak  personal\nvengeance. [533F-534A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n254 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  25.6.1991  of\t the<br \/>\nMadhya\tPradesh High Court in Misc. Criminal Case  No.\t1701<br \/>\nof 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>     G.L.  Sanghi, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachher and S.K.  Mehta<br \/>\nfor the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       531<\/span><br \/>\n     K. RAMASWAMY, J. Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Through  the  respondent was served on July  29,  1991,<br \/>\nneither appeared in person, nor through counsel.  The  facts<br \/>\nset out in the complaint eloquently manifests on its face  a<br \/>\nclear  abuse  of  the process of the  court  to\t harass\t the<br \/>\nappellants.   The  respondent,\tan  Advocate  and   Standing<br \/>\nCounsel for the first appellant filed a private complaint in<br \/>\nthe court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni in\tC.C.<br \/>\nNo.933\/91 offences under s.409 and ss.109\/114 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The facts stated in the complaint run thus :<br \/>\n     The  first appellant&#8217;s branch at Katni gave a  loan  of<br \/>\nRs. 15,000 to one Sriman Narain Dubey on May 5, 1984 and the<br \/>\nrespondent  and\t his wife Annapoorna  stood  as\t guarantors,<br \/>\nexecuted Annexure &#8216;P&#8217; &#8220;security bond&#8221; and handed over  Fixed<br \/>\nDeposit\t Receipt for a sum of Rs. 24,000 which would  mature<br \/>\non November 1, 1988.  At maturity its value would be at\t Rs.<br \/>\n41,292.\t  The principal debtor committed default in  payment<br \/>\nof   the  debt.\t  On  maturity,\t the  Branch  Manager,\t 5th<br \/>\nappellant,  Sri V.K. Dubey, adjusted a sum of Rs.  27,037.60<br \/>\ndue and payable by the principal debtor as on December, 1988<br \/>\nand  the  balance sum of Rs. 14,254.40 was credited  to\t the<br \/>\nSaving\tBanks  Account of the  respondent.   The  respondent<br \/>\nalleged that the debt became barred by limitation as on\t May<br \/>\n5, 1987.  The liability of the respondent being co-extensive<br \/>\nwith that of the principal debtor, his liability also  stood<br \/>\nextinguished  as on May 5, 1987.  Without taking any  action<br \/>\nto  recover the amount from the principal debtor within\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tof limitation, on January 14, 1989, Sri D.K.  Dubey,<br \/>\nthe  Branch  Manager, intimated that only  Rs.14,250.40\t was<br \/>\ncredited  to  his Saving Bank Account No. 3763.\t The  entire<br \/>\namount\tat  maturity, namely Rs. 41,292 ought to  have\tbeen<br \/>\ncredited to his account and despite repeated demands made by<br \/>\nthe respondent it was not credited.  Thereby the  appellants<br \/>\ncriminally  embezzled the said amount.\tThe first  appellant<br \/>\nwith  a\t dishonest  interest to\t save  themselves  from\t the<br \/>\nfinancial  obligation neglected to recover the\tamount\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  principal\tdebtor and allowed the claim  to  be  barred<br \/>\nlimitation  and\t embezzled  the\t amount\t entrusted  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   The appellant 2 to 6 abated the commission  of<br \/>\nthe  crime in converting the amount of Rs. 27,037.40 to\t its<br \/>\nown  use  in  violation of the\tspecific  direction  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   Thus  they committed the\toffences  punishable<br \/>\nunder s.409 and ss.109 and 114 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       532<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     The   security  bond,  admittedly,\t executed   by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  reads  the\tmaterial parts thus  :\t&#8220;We  Confirm<br \/>\nhaving\thanded over to you by way to security  against\tyour<br \/>\nbranch office Katni F.D. Account No. 77\/83 dated November 1,<br \/>\n1983  for  Rs. 24,000 in the event of renewal  of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nFixed  Deposit Receipt as security for the above loan.&#8221;\t &#8220;We<br \/>\nConfirm&#8230;the  F.D.R. will continue to remain with the\tbank<br \/>\nas  security  here&#8221;. &#8220;The amount due and other\tcharges,  if<br \/>\nany,  be adjusted and appropriated by you from the  proceeds<br \/>\nof the said F.D.R. at any time before, on or its maturity at<br \/>\nyour discretion, unless the loan is otherwise fully adjusted<br \/>\nfrom the dues on demand in writing made by you&#8230;.&#8221; &#8220;We give<br \/>\nthe  bank  right to credit the balance to our  saving  banks<br \/>\naccount\t or any other amount and adjust the amount due\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  borrowers\tout  of the same&#8221;.  &#8220;We\t authorise  you\t and<br \/>\nconfirm that the F.D.R. pledged a security for the said loan<br \/>\nshall  also  be\t security  including  the  surplus  proceeds<br \/>\nthereof for any other liability and the obligation of person<br \/>\nand  further  in favour of the bank and the  bank  shall  be<br \/>\nentitled  to  retain\/realise\/utilise\/appropriate  the\tsame<br \/>\nwithout reference to us.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Admittedly,  as the principal debtor did not repay\t the<br \/>\ndebt,  the  bank  as creditor adjusted at  maturity  of\t the<br \/>\nF.D.R., the outstanding debt due to the bank in terms of the<br \/>\ncontract  and  the balance sum was credited  to\t the  Saving<br \/>\nBanks  account of the respondent.  The rules  of  limitation<br \/>\nare not meant to destroy the rights of the parties.  Section<br \/>\n3 of the Limitation Act 36 of 1963, for short &#8220;the Act&#8221; only<br \/>\nbars  the remedy, but does not destroy the right  which\t the<br \/>\nremedy relates to.  The right to the debt continues to exist<br \/>\nnotwithstanding\t the  remedy is barred\tby  the\t limitation.<br \/>\nOnly  exception in which the remedy also becomes  barred  by<br \/>\nlimitation  is that right itself is destroyed.\tFor  example<br \/>\nunder s.27 of the Act a suit for possession of any  property<br \/>\nbecoming barred by limitation, the right to property  itself<br \/>\nis  destroyed.\t Except in such cases  which  are  specially<br \/>\nprovided  under the right to which remedy relates  in  other<br \/>\ncase  the right subsists.   Though the right to enforce\t the<br \/>\ndebt  by judicial process is barred under s.3 read with\t the<br \/>\nrelevant Article in the schedule, the right to debt remains.<br \/>\nThe  time barred debt does not cease to exist by reasons  of<br \/>\ns.3.   That right can be exercised in any other manner\tthan<br \/>\nby  means of a suit.  The debt is not extinguished, but\t the<br \/>\nremedy\tto  enforce the liability is  destroyed.   What\t s.3<br \/>\nrefers\tis  only to the remedy but not to the right  of\t the<br \/>\ncreditors.  Such debt continues to subsists so long as it is<br \/>\nnot  paid.  It is not obligatory to file a suit\t to  recover<br \/>\nthe  debt.   It is settled law that the\t creditor  would  be<br \/>\nentitled<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       533<\/span><br \/>\nto  adjust, from the payment of a sum by a  debtor,  towards<br \/>\nthe  time barred debt.\tIt is also equally settled law\tthat<br \/>\nthe  creditor  when  he\t is in\tpossession  of\tan  adequate<br \/>\nsecurity,  the debt due could be adjusted from the  security<br \/>\nin  his possession and custody.\t Undoubtedly the  respondent<br \/>\nand  his  wife\tstood guarantors to  the  principal  debtor,<br \/>\njointly executed the security bond and entrusted the  F.D.R.<br \/>\nas  security  to  adjust the outstanding  debt\tfrom  it  at<br \/>\nmaturity.  Therefore, though the remedy to recover the\tdebt<br \/>\nfrom  the  principal  debtor is barred\tby  limitation,\t the<br \/>\nliability still subsists.  In terms of the contract the bank<br \/>\nis  entitled  to  appropriate the debt due  and\t credit\t the<br \/>\nbalance amount to the saving bank account of the respondent.<br \/>\nThereby\t the appellant did not act in violation of any\tlaw,<br \/>\nnor  converted the amount entrusted to them dishonestly\t for<br \/>\nany  purpose.  Action in terms of the contract expressly  or<br \/>\nimplied is a negation of criminal breach of trust defined in<br \/>\ns.405  and  punishable\tunder s.409 I.P.C.   It\t is  neither<br \/>\ndishonest,  nor\t misappropriation.   The  bank\thad  in\t its<br \/>\npossession  the fixed deposit receipt as guarantee  for\t due<br \/>\npayment\t of  the debt and the bank appropriated\t the  amount<br \/>\ntowards\t the debt due and payable by the  principal  debtor.<br \/>\nFurther,  the F.D.R. was not entrusted during the course  of<br \/>\nthe  business  of  the first appellant as a  Banker  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent but in the capacity as guarantor.  The  complaint<br \/>\ndoes  not  make out any case much less prima facie  case,  a<br \/>\ncondition  precedent  to set criminal law  in  motion.\t The<br \/>\nMagistrate  without adverting whether the allegation in\t the<br \/>\ncomplaint  prima  facie makes out an  offence  charged\tfor,<br \/>\nobviously,  in\ta  mechanical  manner,\tissued\tthe  process<br \/>\nagainst all the appellants.  The High Court committed  grave<br \/>\nerror  in  declining to quash the complaint on\tthe  finding<br \/>\nthat the Bank acted prima facie high handedly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t is  also  salutary to note  that  judicial  process<br \/>\nshould\tnot  be\t an  instrument\t of  oppression\t or  needles<br \/>\nharassment.  The complaint was laid impleading the Chairman,<br \/>\nthe  Managing  Director of the Bank by name and\t a  host  of<br \/>\nofficers.   There  lies\t responsibility\t and  duty  on\t the<br \/>\nMigistracy  to find whether the concerned accused should  be<br \/>\nlegally\t responsible  for the offence against  the  juristic<br \/>\nperson\tor the persons impleaded then only process would  be<br \/>\nissued.\t  At that stage the court would be  circumspect\t and<br \/>\njudicious  in exercising discretion and should take all\t the<br \/>\nrelevant  facts and circumstances into consideration  before<br \/>\nissuing process lest it would be an instrument in the  hands<br \/>\nof  the private complaint as vendetta to harass the  persons<br \/>\nneedlessly.    Vindication   of\t majesty  of   justice\t and<br \/>\nmaintenance of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       534<\/span><br \/>\nlaw  and  order\t in the society are  the  prime\t objects  of<br \/>\ncriminal  justice  but it would not be the  means  to  wreak<br \/>\npersonal vengeance.  Considered from any angle we find\tthat<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t had abused the process and  laid  complaint<br \/>\nagainst\t all the appellants without any prima facie case  of<br \/>\nharass them for vendetta.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal is accordingly allowed and the complaint  is<br \/>\nquashed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t    535<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1815, 1992 SCR (2) 528 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SURENDRA PRASAD SINHA DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1992 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. [&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-35632","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>Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992 - 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\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-16T00:26:19+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T00:26:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992\"},\"wordCount\":1481,\"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\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992\",\"name\":\"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T00:26:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992 - 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\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-16T00:26:19+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992","datePublished":"1992-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T00:26:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992"},"wordCount":1481,"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\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992","name":"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T00:26:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-and-ors-vs-surendra-prasad-sinha-on-20-april-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992"}]},{"@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\/35632","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=35632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}