{"id":64441,"date":"2007-01-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007"},"modified":"2014-11-13T19:48:40","modified_gmt":"2014-11-13T14:18:40","slug":"syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 1237 of 2005()\n\n\n1. SYNDICATE BANK, PUNALUR BRANCH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. S.S.SHERIFF, S\/O.A.S.RAWTHER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF ERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY\n\n3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,\n\n4. TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAPURAM TALUK,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :09\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    (V.K.BALI, C.J &  M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)\n\n             ----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                             W.A.No. 1237 of 2005\n\n\n         -----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                Dated this the         day of January, 2007\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran, J:\n<\/p>\n
       A   public   sector   bank   has   come   up   in   appeal   feeling<\/p>\n
aggrieved   about   the   judgment   dated   07-01-2005   rendered<\/p>\n
in   O.P.No.5184   of  2001.     The   bank  was  the   4th  respondent<\/p>\n
therein,   and   had   advanced   a   loan   to   the   petitioner   in   the<\/p>\n
Original   Petition   (Ist   respondent   herein).     When   the<\/p>\n
repayment   was   not   forthcoming,   they   had   filed   a   suit   and<\/p>\n
obtained   a   decree   on   20-05-1989.     E.P.No.95   of   1991<\/p>\n
thereafter   had   been   filed   and   it   is   pending   before   the   Sub<\/p>\n
Court,   Kottarakkara.     Revenue   recovery   proceedings   were<\/p>\n
initiated   against   the   petitioner   thereafter.     A   copy   of   the<\/p>\n
notice issued in the year 2001 shows the amount of arrears<\/p>\n
as Rs.3,44,021\/-, which is produced as Ext.P2.\n<\/p>\n
       2.          Such   proceedings   had   been   subjected   to<\/p>\n
challenge by the petitioner, contending that after obtaining<\/p>\n
a decree it was impermissible to proceed with fresh steps of<\/p>\n
[WA No.1237 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                                       -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
revenue recovery.  It was also argued that the bank loan was<\/p>\n
time barred to be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act<\/p>\n
and therefore the proceedings were to be interdicted.\n<\/p>\n
       3.      Adverting   to   the   judgment   in  State   Bank   of<\/p>\n
India  v.  Kuttappan<\/a>   [1998 (20 KLT 130], the learned single<\/p>\n
Judge   held   that   recovery   of   amounts   under   the   Revenue<\/p>\n
Recovery Act would be permissible as the words “on account<\/p>\n
of   loan   advanced”   would   take   in   the   amount   due   under   the<\/p>\n
decree   obtained   on   the   basis   of   that   loan.     Therefore,   there<\/p>\n
was   no   question   of   limitation.     However,   the   learned   Judge<\/p>\n
relying   on   the   judgment   in          Andhra   Pradesh   State<\/p>\n
Financial   Corporation  v.  M\/s.Gar   Re-Rolling   Mills   and<\/a><\/p>\n
another  [AIR  1994  SC 2151],   held  that since   a  decree  had<\/p>\n
been obtained, it would have been incompetent for the Bank<\/p>\n
to   proceed   simultaneously   with   Revenue   Recovery<\/p>\n
proceedings.     It  was  suggested  that   it   would   be  open   to   the<\/p>\n
Bank   either   to   withdraw   the   Execution   Petition   under   the<\/p>\n
Revenue  Recovery   Act   or   to   give   up   the   revenue   recovery<\/p>\n
proceedings   until   the   execution   proceedings   are   terminated.\n<\/p>\n
[WA No.1237 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                                       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
This, the appellant submits, laid the Bank in deep trouble, and<\/p>\n
an interpretation of the provisions do not justify the dictum.\n<\/p>\n
       4.      Mr.R.S.Kalkuara,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the<\/p>\n
appellant–Bank   submits   that   in   Kuttappan’s   case   (cited<\/p>\n
supra), the same issue had come up for consideration and the<\/p>\n
learned   Judge   at   that   time   had   also   noticed   the   presence   of<\/p>\n
the   Supreme   Court   judgment   in   Andhra   Pradesh   State<\/p>\n
Financial   Corporation’s   case,   but   was   of   the   view   that   since<\/p>\n
the point is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
Kerala   Fisheries   Corporation  v.  P.S.John<\/a>  [1996   (1)   KLT<\/p>\n
814], the objection  made  on such lines would not have been<\/p>\n
sustainable.     According   to   him,   the   learned   Judge   erred   in<\/p>\n
sidelining   the   decision   of   the   Kerala   High   Court   and   had<\/p>\n
sought   to   rely   on   a   Supreme   Court   judgment,   which   dealt<\/p>\n
with an altogether different legal proposition.\n<\/p>\n
       5.      Mr.Kalkura submits that the Supreme Court was<\/p>\n
examining   an   issue   concerning   the   State   Financial<\/p>\n
Corporations   Act,   and   specifically  advertence  was   made   to<\/p>\n
Sections 29 and 31 of the  said Act.   Analysing Section 29 of<\/p>\n
[WA No.1237 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the Act, the Supreme Court had held that it spoke about   the<\/p>\n
Corporation’s   right   to   take   over   the   management   or<\/p>\n
possession   of   a   defaulting   industrial   concern.     Section   31   of<\/p>\n
the Act authorised  Corporations to apply to the District Judge<\/p>\n
for sale of the property pledged or mortgaged with them and<\/p>\n
for applying for interim injunctions restraining the industrial<\/p>\n
concern   from   transferring   or   removing   its   machinery.     The<\/p>\n
court   was   also   examining   the   scope   and   impact   of   the<\/p>\n
expression “without prejudice”, as appeared in Section 31 of<\/p>\n
the Act, and had indicated that the reach and scope of the two<\/p>\n
remedies  were  essentially  different.    Counsel   submits that  it<\/p>\n
is   not   the   case   here,   as   the   defaulter   was   a   decree   debtor.\n<\/p>\n
The decree required to be executed in a time frame given.  No<\/p>\n
funds   were   forthcoming   and   for   efficacious   recoveries   there<\/p>\n
could   not   have   been   any   bar   for   resorting   to   the   remedies<\/p>\n
provided   under   the   Revenue   Recovery   Act.                    He   had<\/p>\n
highlighted   the   observations   made   in   Kuttappan’s   case   that<\/p>\n
the   Revenue   Recovery   Act   enables   recovery   of   amounts   in<\/p>\n
public   interest.     The   intention   obviously   was   to   quicken   the<\/p>\n
[WA No.1237 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
process of recovery, so that amounts will be available to the<\/p>\n
Bank for grant of fresh loans to the needy.   Therefore, it was<\/p>\n
not   possible   to   hold   that   the   two   remedies   were   mutually<\/p>\n
exclusive.   There was no detriment, he submits, or scope for<\/p>\n
objection   as   available   to   a     judgment-debtor   to   contend   that<\/p>\n
the financing institution should adopt soft methods, and there<\/p>\n
is   bar   against   them   in   proceeding   against   him   in   the   most<\/p>\n
efficient manner.   It  is  contended that after recovery by  one<\/p>\n
method,   automatically   the   other   steps   will   be   withdrawn,   as<\/p>\n
the situation may demand.\n<\/p>\n
       6.      We   find   considerable   merit   in   the   arguments   as<\/p>\n
above.     Of   course,     learned   counsel   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
respondents submits that there is clear detriment and the two<\/p>\n
methods of recovery simultaneously engineered are mutually<\/p>\n
exclusive.     However,   we   fail   to   find   any   substance   in   the<\/p>\n
submissions.     This   cannot   be   considered   as   a   contingency<\/p>\n
found by  the  Supreme  Court  while  examining the   scope and<\/p>\n
impact   of   Sections   29   and   31   of   the   State   Financial<\/p>\n
Corporations Act.\n<\/p>\n
[WA No.1237 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
       7.      Mr.Kalkura also referred to a recent judgment of<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court rendered on 29-11-2006 [M\/s.Transcore<\/p>\n
v.  Union   of  India   and<\/a>  another –  Civil   Appeal  Nos.1374\/06<\/p>\n
and connected cases].  The issue had been examined in detail<\/p>\n
and   it   had   been   observed   that   the   position   was   not   to   be<\/p>\n
understood     that   while   electing   procedure   prescribed   by<\/p>\n
Section 31 of the Act, the rights under Section 29 of the Act<\/p>\n
stand   extinguished.     More   importantly,   it   had   also   been<\/p>\n
specifically   observed   that   when   proceedings   were<\/p>\n
independently   taken   as   permissible   under   two   separate<\/p>\n
enactments (DRT Act and NPA Act),  the shackles referred to<\/p>\n
in   A.P.State   Financial   Corporation’s   case   (cited   supra)     may<\/p>\n
not   have   relevance.     This,   according   to   us,   is   a   complete<\/p>\n
answer of the issue agitated.   The proceedings for execution<\/p>\n
of a decree, and the proceedings initiated under the Revenue<\/p>\n
Recovery   Act   are   independent   of   each   other   in   scope   and<\/p>\n
purport,   and   contextually   issue   of   prejudice   is   irrelevant,   as<\/p>\n
the   obvious   attempt   is   to   keep   off   the   evil   days   to   the<\/p>\n
maximum   extent.     Therefore,   discretion   of   the   Court   cannot<\/p>\n
[WA No.1237 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                                         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
be   exercised   in   favour   of   the   petitioner   in   the   writ   petition,<\/p>\n
and   we   should   not   be   oblivious   of   the   plight   of   a   decree<\/p>\n
holder\/financier.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      Consequently, the judgment of the learned single<\/p>\n
Judge is set aside.  The Original Petition will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               V.K.BALI<\/p>\n
                                                        (CHIEF JUSTICE)<\/p>\n
                                                     M.RAMACHANDRAN<\/p>\n
                                                                (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
mks\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 1237 of 2005() 1. SYNDICATE BANK, PUNALUR BRANCH, … Petitioner Vs 1. S.S.SHERIFF, S\/O.A.S.RAWTHER, … Respondent 2. STATE OF ERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, 4. TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAPURAM TALUK, For […]<\/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-64441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSyndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007 - 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\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-13T14:18:40+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-13T14:18:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1121,\"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\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-13T14:18:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007 - 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\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-13T14:18:40+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-13T14:18:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007"},"wordCount":1121,"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\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007","name":"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-13T14:18:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syndicate-bank-vs-s-s-sheriff-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Syndicate Bank vs S.S.Sheriff on 9 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/64441","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=64441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}