{"id":61091,"date":"2006-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-31T05:14:56","modified_gmt":"2017-05-30T23:44:56","slug":"branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 633 of 2006()\n\n\n1. BRANCH MANAGER INDIAN BANK, BHARANIKAVU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, CIRCLE OFFICE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KRISHNAMOORTHY, S\/O.RAMAMOORTHY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :29\/11\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                           M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.\n\n\n\n                                C.R.P No.633 of 2006\n\n\n\n             Dated this the 29th day of November,2006\n\n\n\n                                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.195\/05 on<\/p>\n
the          file         of         Munsiff               Court,         Sasthamcottah.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent   is   the   plaintiff.     Respondent   filed   the<\/p>\n
suit   seeking   a   decree   for   permanent   prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction   restraining                                    petitioner   bank   from<\/p>\n
trespassing   into   the   plaint   schedule   property   or<\/p>\n
transferring   the   property   to   third   parties,<\/p>\n
admitting   that   respondent     is   a   borrower   from   the<\/p>\n
petitioner                  bank.          Petitioner   filed   written<\/p>\n
statement contending that  suit is not maintainable<\/p>\n
by   virtue   of   Section   34   of     Securitisation   and<\/p>\n
Reconstruction   of   Financial   Assets   and   Enforcement<\/p>\n
of          Security            Interest                  Act,2002,            (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred   to   as   the   Act).     As   per   order   dated<\/p>\n
12.4.06,   Munsiff   dismissed   I.A.883\/05   filed   by<\/p>\n
petitioners   challenging   the   maintainability   of   the<\/p>\n
suit   and   held     that     suit   is   maintainable.     It   is<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
challenged   in   this   revision   petition   filed   under<\/p>\n
section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     2.Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   Learned   counsel   appearing   for   petitioners<\/p>\n
pointed out that respondent had borrowed the amount<\/p>\n
from        petitioner   bank   and   when             respondent<\/p>\n
committed   default,   the   Bank   issued   notice   as<\/p>\n
provided under sub section (2) of Section 13 of the<\/p>\n
Act   and   instead   of   filing     objection,   respondent<\/p>\n
rushed   to   the   court   and   filed   the   suit   which   is<\/p>\n
barred     under   section   34   of   the   Act.     It   was   also<\/p>\n
argued   that   learned   Munsiff   without   properly<\/p>\n
appreciating   the   provisions   of   Section   34   or<\/p>\n
following   the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court,   relying<\/p>\n
on   a   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in  Dhulabhai   v.\n<\/p>\n
State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR  1969 SC 78)  rendered<\/p>\n
much earlier to the enactment of the Act held that<\/p>\n
the  suit  is  maintainable  and  that  order  is  illegal<\/p>\n
and  unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.   Learned   counsel   appearing   for     respondent<\/p>\n
argued  that  all  suits  are  not  barred  under  section<\/p>\n
34   and           Apex   Court   has   held   that   there   are<\/p>\n
exceptions to the bar provided under section 34 and<\/p>\n
when   fraud   is   alleged   the     suit   is   maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
It   was   argued   that                      notice   contemplated   under<\/p>\n
section 13(2) of the  Act is a notice providing the<\/p>\n
details of the amount due and the notice served on<\/p>\n
the   respondent     does   not   disclose   the   details   and<\/p>\n
instead   the     total   amount   without   the   details     is<\/p>\n
claimed   and   it   is   not   a   notice   as   provided   under<\/p>\n
section 13(2) and hence the suit is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     5.Section 13(2) and (3) of the  Act reads:-\n<\/p>\n
      (2)”Where   any   borrower,   who   is<\/p>\n
      under   a   liability   to   a   secured<\/p>\n
      creditor              under                     a         security<\/p>\n
      agreement,   makes   any   default   in<\/p>\n
      repayment   of   secured   debt   or   any<\/p>\n
      instalment thereof, and his account<\/p>\n
      in         respect         of         such                debt         is<\/p>\n
      classified   by   the   secured   creditor<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
      as   non-performing   asset,   then,   the<\/p>\n
      secured   creditor   may   require   the<\/p>\n
      borrower   by   notice   in   writing   to<\/p>\n
      discharge   in   full   his   liabilities<\/p>\n
      to   the   secured   creditor   within<\/p>\n
      sixty   days  from   the  date   of  notice<\/p>\n
      failing   which   the   secured   creditor<\/p>\n
      shall   be   entitled   to   exercise   all<\/p>\n
      or   any   of   the   rights   under   sub-\n<\/p>\n
      section (4).\n<\/p>\n
      (3)   The  notice   referred  to   in  sub-\n<\/p>\n
      section   (2)   shall   give   details   of<\/p>\n
      the   amount   payable   by   the   borrower<\/p>\n
      and   the   secured   assets   intended   to<\/p>\n
      be enforced by the secured creditor<\/p>\n
      in   the   event   of   non-payment   of<\/p>\n
      secured debts by the borrower.”\n<\/p>\n
The bar of suits provided under section 34 reads:-\n<\/p>\n
       “No            civil         court         shall         have<\/p>\n
       jurisdiction  to  entertain  any   suit<\/p>\n
       or   proceeding   in   respect   of   any<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
       matter   which   a   Debts   Recovery<\/p>\n
       Tribunal  or  the  Appellate   Tribunal<\/p>\n
       is   empowered   by   or   under   this   Act<\/p>\n
       to   determine   and   no   injunction<\/p>\n
       shall   be   granted   by   any   Court   or<\/p>\n
       other   authority   in   respect   of   any<\/p>\n
       action   taken   or   to   be   taken   in<\/p>\n
       pursuance   of   any   power   conferred<\/p>\n
       by   or   under   this   Act   or   under   the<\/p>\n
       Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and<\/p>\n
       Financial   Institutions   Act,   1993<\/p>\n
       (51 of 1993).”\n<\/p>\n
The   Constitutional   validity   of   the   Act   was<\/p>\n
considered by the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals v.\n<\/p>\n
Union   of   India   (2004(2)   KLT   273).  Upholding   the<\/p>\n
constitutional           validity           and         repelling         the<\/p>\n
contention against Section 34, their Lordship held:\n<\/p>\n
      “50.   It   has   also   been   submitted<\/p>\n
      that   an   appeal   is   entertainable<\/p>\n
      before the Debt Recovery Tribunal<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
      only   after   such   measures   as<\/p>\n
      provided   in   sub-section(4)   of<\/p>\n
      Section   13   are   taken   and   Section<\/p>\n
      34          bars            to          entertain             any<\/p>\n
      proceeding in respect of a matter<\/p>\n
      which   the   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal<\/p>\n
      or   the   appellate   Tribunal   is<\/p>\n
      empowered                to        determine.                Thus<\/p>\n
      before action or measure is taken<\/p>\n
      under   sub-section   (4)   of   Section<\/p>\n
      13,   it   is   submitted   by   Mr.Salve<\/p>\n
      one              of         the              counsel          for<\/p>\n
      respondents   that   there   would   be<\/p>\n
      no   bar   to   approach   the   civil<\/p>\n
      court.     Therefore,   it   cannot   be<\/p>\n
      said   no   remedy   is   available   to<\/p>\n
      the borrowers.  We, however, find<\/p>\n
      that   this   contention   as   advanced<\/p>\n
      by  Shri   Salve  is  not  correct.    A<\/p>\n
      full   reading   of   section   34   shows<\/p>\n
      that   the   jurisdiction   of   the<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
      civil  court is barred in respect<\/p>\n
      of   matters   which   a   Debt   Recovery<\/p>\n
      Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is<\/p>\n
      empowered to determine in respect<\/p>\n
      of   any   action   taken”or   to   be<\/p>\n
      taken   in   pursuance   of   any   power<\/p>\n
      conferred   under   this   Act”.   That<\/p>\n
      is   to   say   the   prohibition   covers<\/p>\n
      even   matters   which   can   be   taken<\/p>\n
      cognizance                of         by              the         Debt<\/p>\n
      Recovery             Tribunal                    though               no<\/p>\n
      measure   in   that   direction   has   so<\/p>\n
      far   been   taken   under   sub-section<\/p>\n
      (4) of Section 13.  It is further<\/p>\n
      to   be   noted   that   the   bar   of<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction   is   in   respect   of   a<\/p>\n
      proceeding   which   matter   may   be<\/p>\n
      taken           to              the                   Tribunal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Therefore,   any   matter   in   respect<\/p>\n
      of   which   an   action   may   be   taken<\/p>\n
      even   later   on,   the   civil   court<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
      shall   have   no   jurisdiction   to<\/p>\n
      entertain any proceeding thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The   bar   of   civil   court   thus<\/p>\n
      applies to all such matters which<\/p>\n
      may be taken cognizance of by the<\/p>\n
      Debt   Recovery   Tribunal,   apart<\/p>\n
      from   those   matters   in   which<\/p>\n
      measures   have   already   been   taken<\/p>\n
      under   sub-section(4)   of   Section<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      13.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Their   Lordships   also   considered   the   exception   of<\/p>\n
the bar and held:-\n<\/p>\n
     “51.   However,   to   a   very   limited<\/p>\n
     extent   jurisdiction   of   the   civil<\/p>\n
     court   can   also   be   invoked,   where   for<\/p>\n
     example,   the   action   of   the   secured<\/p>\n
     creditor   is   alleged   to   be   fraudulent<\/p>\n
     of   their   claim   may   be   so   absurd   and<\/p>\n
     untenable   which   may   not   require   any<\/p>\n
     probe, whatsoever or to say precisely<\/p>\n
     to          the         extent         the         scope         is<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     permissible to bring an action in the<\/p>\n
     civil   court   in   the   cases   of   English<\/p>\n
     mortgages”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.   The   facts   of   the   case   establish   that<\/p>\n
petitioner   bank   had   already   initiated   steps   under<\/p>\n
the Act.   A notice as provided under section 13(2)<\/p>\n
was   sent   to   the   respondent.   According   to   learned<\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   petitioners   inspite   of   the<\/p>\n
service   of   notice,   respondent   did   not   file   any<\/p>\n
objection.              When   a   notice   as   provided   under<\/p>\n
section   13(2)   of   the   Act     is   sent   to   a   borrower<\/p>\n
and   borrower   files   an   objection   as   provided   under<\/p>\n
section   13(3A)   the   borrower   has   a   right   to   raise<\/p>\n
any   objection   to   the   said   notice.     Sub   section<\/p>\n
(3A)   provides   that   on   receipt   of   the   notice   under<\/p>\n
sub section 2, if the borrower makes objection,the<\/p>\n
secured               creditor         shall         consider         such<\/p>\n
representation   or   objection   and   if   on   such<\/p>\n
consideration   comes   to   the   conclusion   that   such<\/p>\n
representation   or   objection   is   not   acceptable   or<\/p>\n
tenable,   he   shall   communicate   within   one   week   of<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
receipt   of   such   representation   or   objection       the<\/p>\n
reasons   for   non-acceptance   of   the   representation<\/p>\n
or objection.  But the  proviso to the sub section<\/p>\n
makes it clear that  the  reasons  so communicated<\/p>\n
or   the   likely   action   of   the   secured   creditor   at<\/p>\n
the   stage   of   communication   of   reasons   shall   not<\/p>\n
confer   any   right   upon   the   borrower   to   prefer   an<\/p>\n
application   to   the   Debts   Recovery   Tribunal   under<\/p>\n
section   17   or   the   Court   of   District   Judge   under<\/p>\n
section   17A   of   the   Act.   The   right   of   the   borrower<\/p>\n
to   approach   the   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal             will<\/p>\n
accrue only after measures are taken under section<\/p>\n
13(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The   question   is   whether   in   the   light   of<\/p>\n
these   provisions         a   borrower,   without   filing   an<\/p>\n
objection   to   the   notice   under   section   13(2),   who<\/p>\n
is not entitled to prefer a petition under section<\/p>\n
17,   even   if   he   has   filed   objection   and   it   was<\/p>\n
found   untenable   and   the   reasons   was   communicated<\/p>\n
can   institute     a   civil   suit   in   a   civil   court<\/p>\n
seeking   a   decree   for   injunction   restraining   the<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
bank   from   entering   the   mortgaged   property   or<\/p>\n
putting     the   property   for   sale.     The   argument   of<\/p>\n
the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   respondent   was<\/p>\n
that as the notice does not contain the details of<\/p>\n
the   amount   as   provided   under   sub   section   3   of<\/p>\n
Section   13   respondent   is   entitled   to   approach   the<\/p>\n
civil   court   for   the   remedy.     I   cannot   agree   with<\/p>\n
the   submission.         When   the   respondent   did   not<\/p>\n
dispute the amount due and did not claim that  the<\/p>\n
notice   sent   under     section   (2)   is   bad   for       non-\n<\/p>\n
mentioning   the   details     as   provided   under   sub<\/p>\n
section   (3),   he   is   not   entitled   to   circumvent   the<\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   Act   or   avoid   the   bar   under<\/p>\n
section 34 contending that notice did not disclose<\/p>\n
the   details.     If   the   notice   does   not   contain   the<\/p>\n
details   as   contemplated   under   sub   section   3,   he<\/p>\n
should   have   filed   representation   or   objection   as<\/p>\n
provided   under   sub   section   3A.     It   is   definitely<\/p>\n
not     a   ground   to   file   a   suit   inspite   of   the   bar<\/p>\n
provided   under   section   34.     Unfortunately   court<\/p>\n
below   did   not   appreciate   the   provisions   of<\/p>\n
CRP No.633\/06                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
Section   34   in   the   proper   perspective.   It   appears<\/p>\n
that   the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   was   not<\/p>\n
brought   to   the   notice   of   the   court.   It   is<\/p>\n
absolutely clear that the suit is barred under the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 34 of the Act.  The impugned<\/p>\n
order   is   set   aside   and   it   is   held   that     suit   is<\/p>\n
barred     under   section   34   of   the   Act.     It   is   made<\/p>\n
clear   that   respondent   is   entitled   to   approach   the<\/p>\n
Bank   for   one   time   settlement.   If   such   a<\/p>\n
representation for one time settlement   is made to<\/p>\n
the   Bank,   Bank   has   to   consider   the   same   and   pass<\/p>\n
appropriate   orders.     Respondent   is   also   entitled<\/p>\n
to approach the Bank for the details of the amount<\/p>\n
due and if such a representation is made, the Bank<\/p>\n
shall furnish the details.\n<\/p>\n
      Civil Revision is disposed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                         M.Sasidharan Nambiar<\/p>\n
                                                     Judge<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
 ———————\n<\/p>\n
    C.R.P.NO.633 \/06<\/p>\n
 ———————\n<\/p>\n
         ORDER<\/p>\n
   29TH NOVEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 633 of 2006() 1. BRANCH MANAGER INDIAN BANK, BHARANIKAVU … Petitioner 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, CIRCLE OFFICE, Vs 1. KRISHNAMOORTHY, S\/O.RAMAMOORTHY, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBranch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006 - 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\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-30T23:44:56+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\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-30T23:44:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1642,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-30T23:44:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006 - 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\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-30T23:44:56+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\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-30T23:44:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006"},"wordCount":1642,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006","name":"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-30T23:44:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/branch-manager-indian-bank-vs-krishnamoorthy-on-29-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Branch Manager Indian Bank vs Krishnamoorthy on 29 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/61091","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=61091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}