{"id":66961,"date":"1981-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981"},"modified":"2016-12-25T03:08:26","modified_gmt":"2016-12-24T21:38:26","slug":"state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981","title":{"rendered":"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1744, \t\t 1982 SCR (1) 338<\/div>\n
Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHAMMED MOHAMMED KHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/08\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1744\t\t  1982 SCR  (1) 338\n 1981 SCC  (4)\t82\t  1981 SCALE  (3)1253\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1986 SC1499\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\n     Kerala Agriculturists.  Debt Relief  Act (Act 11) 1970-\nWhether a  debt owed  by an  Agriculturist falls  within the\npurview of section 2(4).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  respondent  had  an  overdraft  account  with\t the\nErattupetta Branch  of the  Kottayam orient Bank Ltd. at the\nfoot of\t which he owed a sum of over Rs. 3000\/- to the Bank.\nThe said  Bank which  was a  'Banking Company' as defined in\nthe Banking  Regulation Act,  1949, was amalgamated with the\nappellant Bank with effect from June 17, 1961. The appellant\nBank filed  a suit  (O,S, 28  of  1963)\t in  the  Sub-Court,\nMeenachil, against the respondent for recovery of the amount\ndue from  him in  the overdraft\t Account with  the  Kottayam\norient Bank,  the right\t to recover  which had\tcome  to  be\nvested in  the appellant  as  a\t result\t of  the  scheme  of\namalgamation.  The   suit  was\tdecreed\t in  favour  of\t the\nappellant but  when it took out execution proceedings in the\nSub-Court, Kottayam,  the respondent  filed  an\t application\nunder section  8 of  the Kerala\t Agriculturists' Debt Relief\nAct claiming  that being an agriculturist within the meaning\nof  that  Act,\the  was\t entitled  to  the  benefit  of\t its\nprovisions including  those relating  to the scaling down of\ndebts.\tThe   learned  Subordinate   Judge   dismissed\t the\napplication  holding:\t(i)  that  the\trespondent  was\t not\nentitled to  the benefit of the provisions regarding scaling\ndown of\t the debt because the debt, having been once owed by\nhim to\tthe Kottayam  orient Bank  Ltd. which  was a Banking\nCompany as  defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, was\noutside the  purview of\t section S of the Act which provided\nfor the\t scaling down  of debts\t owed by agriculturists; and\n(ii) that he was only entitled to the benefit of the proviso\nto section  2(4) (l) of the Act under which the amount could\nbe repaid in eight half yearly instalments\n     The Revision  Application preferred  by the  respondent\nwas referred  to the  Full Bench  of the  High Court. It was\ncontended on behalf of the appellant Bank that the debt owed\nto it  by the  respondent was excluded from the operation of\nthe Act\t by reason  of section\t2 (4) (a) (ii) and section 2\n(4) (1)\t of the\t Act. By its judgment dated February 1, 1978\nthe  High   Court  rejected  that  contention,\tallowed\t the\nRevision  Application  and  held  that\tthe  respondent\t was\nentitled to  all the relevant benefits of the Act, including\nthe benefit of scaling down of the debt and hence the appeal\nby special leave.\n339\n     Dismissing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1:1.\t The appellant\tBank will not be entitled to\nthe benefit  of the exclusion contained in section 2 (4) (a)\n(ii) of\t the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 in\nview of\t clause (B)  of the  proviso to\t the section and the\nrespondent's claim  to the  benefits of\t the Act will remain\nunaffected by that provision. [345H, 346 A]\n     1: 2. The respondent is admittedly an agriculturist and\nhe owes\t a sum of money to the appellant Bank under a decree\npassed in  its favour  by the  Sub-Court, Meenachil, in O.S.\nNo. 28\tof 1963.  The liability which the respondent owes to\nthe appellant Bank is, therefore a \"debt\" within the meaning\nof section 2 (4) of the Act. [344 F-G]\n     However, since  the appellant  Bank, namely,  the State\nBank of\t Travancore, .\tis  a  subsidiary  bank\t within\t the\nmeaning of  section  2\t(k)  of\t the  State  Bank  of  India\n(Subsidiary Banks)  Act, 1959  and also\t as contemplated  by\nsub-clause (ii)\t of clause  (a) of  section 2(4) of the Act,\nthe  decretal  amount  payable\tby  the\t respondent  to\t the\nappellant Bank\twill not  be a\tdebt within  the meaning  of\nsection 2(4) of the Act. [345 C-D]\n     1: 3. By reason of clause (B) of the proviso to section\n2 (4) (a) (ii) of the Act, which proviso is in the nature of\nan exception to the exceptions contained in the said section\nthe amount  payable to\ta  subsidiary  bank  is\t not  to  be\nregarded as  a debt  within the\t meaning of the Act, only if\nthe right  of the  subsidiary bank to recover the amount did\nnot arise by reason of any transfer effected by operation of\nlaw subsequent\tto July\t 1,  1957.  Here,  the\tnotification\ncontaining the\tscheme of  amalgamation was published on May\n16. 1961. Thus, the right of the appellant Bank, though is a\nsubsidiary Bank,  to recover  the amount from the respondent\narose by  reason of a transfer effected by operation of law,\nnamely, the  scheme of\tamalgamation, which came into effect\nafter July 1, 1957. [345 D-E, G]\n     2: l.  The State Bank of Travancore, is not a 'company'\nproperly  so  called.  It  is  a  subsidiary  bank.  It\t was\nestablished by the Central Government in accordance with The\nAct of\t1959 and  is not  a 'company  and, therefore  not  a\nbanking company.  Therefore, the  decretal  debt  which\t the\nrespondent is  liable to pay to the appellant is not owed to\na \"banking  company\". It was indeed not owed to any \"banking\ncompany\" at all on July 14, 1970 being the date on which the\nAct came into force. [346 G-H, 347 A]\n     3: 1.  The exclusion  provided for\t in  clause  (I)  of\nsection 2  (4) of  the Act can be availed of, if the debt is\ndue to\ta banking company at the time of the commencement of\nthe Act. [352 D-E]\n     3: 2.  The object of the Act is to relieve agricultural\nindebtedness.  In   order  to\tachieve\t that\tobject,\t the\nlegislature  conferred\t certain  benefits  on\tagricultural\ndebtors but,  while doing  so, it  excluded a class of debts\nfrom  the  operation  of  the  Act,  namely,  debts  of\t the\ndescription mentioned  in clauses  (a) to  (n) of  section 2\n(4). One  class of debts taken out from the operation of the\nAct is\tdebts owed  to banking\tcompanies, as  specified  in\nclause (1). The reason for this exception being that, unlike\nmoney lenders who\n340\nexploit needy  agriculturists and impose upon them harsh and\nonerous terms  while granting  loans to them, representative\ninstitutions, like banks and banking companies, are governed\nbe their  rules and  regulations which\tdo not\tchange\tfrom\ndebtor to  debtor and  which, if  anything, are\t intended to\nbenefit the weaker sections of society. [348 A-C]\n     3: 3.  Relief to agricultural debtors who have suffered\nthe oppression\tof private  money-lenders,  has\t to  be\t the\nguiding\t star\twhich\tmust   illumine\t  and\tinform\t the\ninterpretation of  the beneficient  provisions of  the\tAct.\nWhen  clause   (1)  speaks   of\t a   debt  due\t\"before\t the\ncommencement\" of  the Act  to a\t banking  company,  it\tdoes\nundoubtedly mean  what it  says, namely,  that the debt must\nhave been  due to  a banking company before the commencement\nof the\tAct. But it means something more: that the debt must\nalso be\t due to a banking company at the commencement of the\nAct. Reading  into the\tclause the  word \"at\"  which is\t not\nthere, is  the only  rational manner  by which\tmeaning\t and\ncontent could be given to it, so as to further the object of\nthe Act. [349 B-E]\n     Further clause  (I) speaks\t of a  debt due\t before\t the\ncommencement of\t the Act,  what it  truly means to convey is\nnot that  the debt should have been due to a banking company\nat some\t point of  time before\tthe commencement of the Act,\nbut that it must be a debt which was incurred from a banking\ncompany before the commencement of the Act. [349 E-F]\n     Thus, the application of clause (I) is subject to these\nconditions: (i)\t The debt  must have  been incurred  from  a\nbanking company;  (ii) the  debt must  have been so incurred\nbefore the  commencement of the Act; and (iii) the debt must\nbe due\tto a banking company on the date of the commencement\nof the\tAct. These are cumulative conditions and unless each\none of\tthem is\t satisfied, clause (I) will not be attracted\nand the exclusion provided for therein will not be available\nas an  answer to the relief sought by the debtor in terms of\nthe Act. [349G-H, 350 A]\n     3: 4.  Section 2  (4) which  defines a  \"debt\"  had  to\nprovide that  debt means a liability due from or incurred by\nan agriculturist \"on or before the commencement\" of the Act.\nIt  could  not\tbe  that  liabilities  incurred\t before\t the\ncommencement of\t the Act  would be  \"debts\" even though they\nare not\t due on\t the date  of commencement  of the  Act. The\nwords \"on or before the commencement\" of the Act are used in\nthe context  of liabilities  \"due from\tor incurred\"  by  an\nagrieculturist. For  similar reasons,  clause (j) had to use\nthe expression \"at the commencement\" of the Act, the subject\nmatter of that clause being debts due to widows. The benefit\nof the\texclusion provided  for in  clause (j) could only be\ngiven to widows to whom debts were due \"at the commencement\"\nof the\tAct. The  legislature  could  not  have\t given\tthat\nbenefit in respect of debts which were due before but not at\nthe commencement  of the Act. Thus, the language used in the\ntwo provisions\tis suited  to the  particular subject matter\nwith which  those provisions  deal and\tis apposite  to\t the\ncontext in which that language is used.\n[350 C-F]\n     3:5. The  object of  the Act  being to  confer  certain\nbenefits on  agricultural debtors,  the legislature would be\nunder an  obligation, while  excepting a certain category of\ndebts  from   the  operation   of  the\t Act,  to   make   a\nclassification which  will answer  the test  of article\t 14.\nDebts incurred from banking companies and\n341\ndue to\tsuch companies\tat the commencement of the Act would\nfall into  a separate and distinct class, the classification\nbearing a  nexus with  the  object  of\tthe  Act.  If  debts\nincurred from  private money-lenders  are brought within the\nterms of  clause (I) on the theory that the right to recover\nthe debt  had passed on to a banking company sometime before\nthe  commencement   of\tthe   Act,  the\t  clause  would\t  be\nunconstitutional for  the reason that it accords a different\ntreatment to  a category  of debts without a valid basis and\nwithout the classification having a nexus with the object of\nthe Act. [350G-H, 357A-B]\n     State of  Rajasthan v.  Mukanchand<\/a> [1964]\t6  SCR\t903;\nFatehchand Himmatlal  v. State\tof Maharashtra,<\/a> [1977] 2 SCR\n828, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1376 of
\n1978.\n<\/p>\n
      (Appeal  by special  leave from the judgment and order
\ndated the  1st February,  1978 of  the Kerala  High Court in
\nM.F.A. No. 53 of 1977)
\n     L.N. Sinha,  Attorney General, J. M. Joseph, K John and
\nShri Narain for the Appellant. D
\n     C.S. Vaidlyanathan, (A.C.), for the Respondent.
\n      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHANDRACHUD, C.J.\tThe question  which arises  in\tthis
\nappeal by  special leave  is whether  a\t debt  owed  by\t the
\nrespondent, an\tagriculturist, to  the\tappellant-The  State
\nBank of\t Travancore-falls within  the purview  of the Kerala
\nAgriculturists’ Debt  Relief Act,  11 of  1970,\t hereinafter
\ncalled ‘the Act’.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent  had  an  overdraft  Account  with\t the
\nErattupetta Branch  of the Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd., at the
\nfoot of\t which he owed a sum of over Rs. 3000\/- to the Bank.
\nThe said  Bank which  was a  ‘Banking Company’ as defined in
\nthe Banking  Regulation Act,  1949, was amalgamated with the
\nappellant Bank\twith effect  from June 17, 1961 in pursuance
\nof a  scheme of amalgamation prepared by the Reserve Bank of
\nIndia in  exercise of the powers conferred by section 45 (4)
\nof the\tBanking Regulation Act and sanctioned by the Central
\nGovernment under  sub-section (7)  of section  45. Upon\t the
\namalgamation, all  assets and  liabilities of  the  Kottayam
\nOrient Bank  stood transferred\tto the\tappellant Bank.\t The
\nnotification containing the scheme of amalgamation was
\n342<\/span>
\npublished in  the Gazette  of India Extra-ordinary dated May
\n16, 1961 .\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant filed a suit (O.S. No. 28 of 1963) in the
\nSub Court, Meenachil, against the respondent for recovery of
\nthe amount  due from  him in  the overdraft Account with the
\nKottayam Orient Bank, the right to recover which had come to
\nbe vested  in the  appellant as\t a result  of the  aforesaid
\nscheme of  amalgamation. That  suit was decreed in favour of
\nthe appellant, but when it took out execution proceedings in
\nthe Sub-Court,\tKottayam, the  respondent filed\t a  petition
\nunder section  8 of  the Act seeking amendment of the decree
\nin terms  of the  provisions  of  the  Act.  The  respondent
\nclaimed that  he was  an agriculturist within the meaning of
\nthe Act\t and was  therefore entitled  to the  benefit of its
\nprovisions, including  those relating to the scaling down of
\ndebts. The  learned  Subordinate  Judge\t assumed,  what\t was
\nevidently not  controverted,  that  the\t respondent  was  an
\nagriculturist.\tBut   the  learned   Judge  held   that\t the
\nrespondent was\tnot entitled to the benefit of the provision
\nregarding scaling  down of the debt because the debt, having
\nbeen once  owed by  him to  the Kottayam  Orient Bank  Ltd.,
\nwhich was  a ‘Banking  Company as  defined  in\tthe  Banking
\nRegulation Act,\t 1949, was  outside the purview of section 5
\nof the Act which provided for the scaling down of debts owed
\nby agriculturists.  According  to  the\tlearned\t Judge,\t the
\nrespondent was\tonly entitled  to the benefit of the proviso
\nto section 2 (4) (l) of the Act under which the amount could
\nbe repaid in eight half-yearly instalments. Since the relief
\nwhich the  respondent had asked for was that his debt should
\nbe scaled  down and  since he  was held not entitled to that
\nrelief, his application was dismissed by the learned Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of
\nKerala, the  maintainability of\t which was challenged by the
\nappellant on the ground that no appeal lay against the order
\npassed by  the Subordinate Judge on the application filed by
\nthe respondent\tunder section  8 of  the Act. The High Court
\naccepted the preliminary objection but granted permission to
\nthe respondent\tto convert  the appeal into a Civil Revision
\nApplication and\t dealt with  it as  such.  In  view  of\t the
\ngeneral importance  of the questions involved in the matter,
\nthe revision application was referred by a Division Bench to
\nthe Full Bench.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended in  the High  Court on  behalf of the
\nappellant, Bank\t that the  debt owed to it by the respondent
\nwas excluded
\n343<\/span>
\nfrom the operation of the Act by reason of section 2 (4) (a)\n<\/p>\n
(ii) and section 2 (4) (1) of the Act. By its judgment dated
\nFebruary 1,  1978 the  High Court  rejected that contention,
\nallowed\t the   Revision\t Application   and  held   that\t the
\nrespondent was\tentitled to all the relevant benefits of the
\nAct, including\tthe benefit  scaling down  of the  debt. The
\nBank questions\tthe correctness\t of that  judgment  in\tthis
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 8\tof  the\t Act  provides,\t in  so\t far  as  is
\nmaterial, that\twhere, before the commencement of the Act, a
\ncourt has  passed a  decree for, the repayment of a debt, it
\nshall, on  the application  of a  judgment-debtor, who is an
\nagriculturist, apply  the provisions  of the  Act to  such a
\ndecree and  shall amend\t the decree  accordingly. It  is  in
\npursuance of this section that the respondent applied to the
\nexecuting Court for amendment of the decree. Section 4(1) of
\nthe Act\t provides that notwithstanding anything contained hl
\nany law or contract or in a decree of any court, but subject
\nto the\tprovisions of  sub-section (5), an agriculturist may
\ndischarge his  debts in the manner specified in sub-sections
\n(2) and\t (3). Sub-section  (2) of section 4 provides that if
\nany  debt   is\trepaid\t in  seventeen\t equal\thalf  yearly
\ninstalments together with interest at the rates specified in
\nsection 5,  the whole debt shall be deemed to be discharged.
\nSub-section  (3)  specifies  the  period  within  which\t the
\ninstalments have  to be\t paid.\tThe  respondent\t claims\t the
\nbenefit of  the provision  contained   in  section  4 (1) of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to decide  whether the respondent is entitled
\nto the\trelief claimed\tby him,\t it would  be  necessary  to
\nconsider the  provisions of  sections 2 (1) and 2 (4) of the
\nAct. The  short title of the Act shows that it was passed in
\norder to give relief to indebted agriculturists in the State
\nof Kerala.  The State  Legislature  felt  the  necessity  of
\npassing the  Act because,  the Kerala  Agriculturists’\tDebt
\nRelief Act,  31 of  1958, conferred benefits on agricultural
\ndebtors in respect of debts incurred by them before July 14,
\n1958 only.  The Statement  of objects and Reasons of the Act
\nslows that  the agricultural indebtedness amongst the poorer
\nsections of  the community showed an upward trend after July
\n14,  1958   owing  to\tvarious\t economic  factors.  A\tmore
\ncomprehensive legislation  was therefore  introduced by\t the
\nState Legislature  in  the  shape  of  the  present  Act  in
\nsubstitution of\t the Act of 1958. The Act came into force on
\nJuly 14, 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  2\t  (1)  of   the\t  Act\twhich\tdefines\t  an
\n“agriculturist” need not be reproduced because it was common
\nground at all stages bet-\n<\/p>\n
344<\/span><\/p>\n
ween the  parties that\tthe respondent\tis an  agriculturist
\nwithin the meaning of the definition in section 2 (1).\n<\/p>\n
     Section 2\t(4) of the Act, in so far as is material for
\nour purposes, reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 2  (4):”debt” means  any liability in cash or kind,
\n\t       whether secured\tor unsecured,  due  from  or
\n\t       incurred by an agriculturist on or before the
\n\t       commencement of\tthis  Act,  whether  payable
\n\t       under a\tcontract, or under a decree or order
\n\t       of any  court, or  otherwise,  but  does\t not
\n\t       include:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a) any sum payable to:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i)  the Government of Kerala or the Government of
\n\t       India or the Government of any other State or
\n\t       Union territory or any local authority; or\n<\/p>\n
\t  (ii) the  Reserve Bank  of India or the State Bank
\n\t       of India\t or any\t subsidiary bank  within the
\n\t       meaning of  clause (k)  of section  2 of\t the
\n\t       State Bank of India (Subsidiary Act, 1959, or
\n\t       the Travancore  Credit Bank  (in liquidation)
\n\t       constituted under  the Travancore Credit Bank
\n\t       Act, IV of 1113:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided that the right of the bank to recover the
\n     sum did not arise by reason of:-\n<\/p>\n
     (A)  any assignment made or
\n     (B)  any  transfer\t  effected  by\t operation  of\tlaw,
\n\t  subsequent to the 1st day of July, 1957″.\n<\/p>\n
As  stated   above,  the   respondent\tis   admittedly\t  an
\nagriculturist and  he owes  a sum  of money to the appellant
\nBank under  a decree  passed in its favour by the Sub-Court,
\nMeenacil, in  O.S. No.\t28 of  1963. The liability which the
\nrespondent owes\t to the appellant Bank is therefore a “debt”
\nwithin the  meaning of section 2 (4) of the Act. But certain
\nliabilities are excluded from the ambit of the definition of
\n“Debt”. The  liabilities which\tare thus  excluded from\t the
\ndefinition of  debt are\t specified in  clauses (a) to (n) of
\nsection 2  (4). We  are concerned  in this  appeal with\t the
\nliabilities specified  in clause  (a) (ii) and clause (1) of
\nsection 2 (4), which are excluded from
\n345<\/span>
\nthe operation  of clause  2 (4).  We will first consider the
\nimplications of\t the exclusion\tprovided for  in  sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
(ii) of\t clause (a)  of section\t 2 (4).\t Under the aforesaid
\nsub-clause, any\t sum payable to a subsidiary bank within the
\nmeaning of  section  2\t(k)  of\t the  State  Bank  of  India
\n(Subsidiary  Banks)   Act,  1959,   is\texcluded   from\t the
\ndefinition of  “debt”. Section\t2 (k)  of the  Act  of\t1959
\ndefines a  “subsidiary bank” to mean any new bank, including
\nthe Hyderabad  Bank and\t the Saurashtra Bank. The expression
\n“new bank” is defined in section 2 (f) of the Act of 1959 to
\nmean any of the banks constituted under section 3. Section 3
\nprovides that  with effect  from such  date, as\t the Central
\nGovernment may\tspecify, there\tshall be constituted the new
\nbanks specified\t in the\t section. Clause  (f) of  section  3
\nmentions the  State Bank of Travancore amongst the new banks
\nwhich may  be constituted  under section 3. It is thus clear
\nthat  the   appellant  Bank,   namely,\tthe  State  Bank  of
\nTravancore, is\ta subsidiary  bank as  contemplated by\tsub-
\nclause (ii)  of clause\t(a) of\tsection 2 (4) of the Act. If
\nthe matter  were to  rest there, the decretal amount payable
\nby the\trespondent to  the appellant Bank will not be a debt
\nwithin the  meaning of\tsection 2  (4) of the Act, since the
\nappellant is a subsidiary bank within the meaning of section
\n2 (k)  of the  State Bank  of India  (Subsidiary Banks) Act,
\n1959. But  by reason of clause (B) of the proviso to section
\n2 (4)  (a)  (ii)  of  the  Act,\t the  amount  payable  to  a
\nsubsidiary bank\t is not\t to be regarded as a debt within the
\nmeaning of the Act, only if the right of the subsidiary bank
\nto recover  the amount\tdid  not  arise\t by  reason  of\t any
\ntransfer effected  by operation of law subsequent to July 1,
\n1957. The  proviso is  thus in the nature of an exception to
\nthe exceptions\tcontained in  section 2\t (4) (a) (ii) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  initially\towed  a\t sum  exceeding\t Rs.
\n3000\/- to the Erattupetta Branch of the Kottayam Orient Bank
\nLtd. which  was amalgamated  with the  appellant  Bank\twith
\neffect from June 17, 1961 pursuant to an amalgamation scheme
\nprepared by  the Reserve  Bank of  India.  All\tthe  rights,
\nassets and  liabilities of  the Kottayam  Orient  Bank\twere
\ntransferred to\tthe  appellant\tBank  as  a  result  of\t the
\namalgamation. The  notification\t containing  the  scheme  of
\namalgamation was  published on May 16, 1961. Thus, the right
\nof the\tappellant Bank,\t though it  is a subsidiary Bank, to
\nrecover the  amount from the respondent arose by reason of a
\ntransfer effected by operation of law, namely, the scheme of
\namalgamation, which  came into\teffect after  July 1,  1957.
\nSince clause (B) of the proviso to section 2 (4) (a) (ii) is
\nattracted, the\tappellant Bank\twill not  be entitled to the
\nbenefit of the exclusion contained in section 2 (4) (a)
\n346<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(ii) of the Act and the respondents claim to the benefits of
\nthe Act will remain unaffected by that provision.\n<\/p>\n
     That  makes  it  necessary\t to  consider  the  question
\nwhether the  appellant Bank  can get the advantage of any of
\nthe other  exclusionary clauses\t (a) to (n) of section 2 (4)
\nof the\tAct. The only other clause of section 2 (4) which is
\nrelied upon  by the  appellant in this behalf is clause (1),
\naccording to  which the\t word ‘debt’ as defined in section 2
\n(4) will not include:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “any debt exceeding three thousand rupees borrowed
\n     under  a\tsingle\ttransaction   and  due\t before\t the
\n     commencement  of  this  Act  to  any  banking  company;
\n     (emphasis supplied)
\n\t  Provided that\t in the\t case of  any debt exceeding
\n     three  thousand   rupees  borrowed\t  under\t  a   single
\n     transaction and due before the commencement of this Act
\n     to any  banking company, any agriculturist debtor shall
\n     be entitled  to repay  such debt  in eight\t equal half-
\n     yearly instalments\t as provided  in sub-section  (3) of
\n     section 4,\t but the  provisions of\t section 5 shall not
\n     apply to such debt.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The  question for\t consideration is whether the amount
\nwhich the  respondent is  liable to pay under the decree was
\n“due before  the commencement  of the  Act  to\tany  Banking
\nCompany”.\n<\/p>\n
     Turning first  to the  question whether  the  appellant
\nBank is\t a banking  company, the  learned Subordinate  Judge
\nassumed that  it is, but no attempt was made to sustain that
\nfinding in the High Court. Shri Abdul Khader, who appears on
\nbehalf of  the appellant conceded before us that it is not a
\nbanking company.  The  concession  is  rightly\tmade,  since
\naccording to  section 2(2)  of the  Act,  ‘Banking  Company’
\nmeans a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation
\nAct, 1949. Section S(c) of the Act of 1949 defines a banking
\ncompany to  mean any Company which transacts the business of
\nbanking in  India (subject to the provision contained in the
\nExplanation to\tthe section). Thus, in order that a bank may
\nbe a  banking company,\tit is  in the  first place necessary
\nthat it\t must be  a “company”. The State Bank of Travancore,
\nwhich is  the  appellant  before  us,  is  not\ta  ‘company’
\nproperly so  called. It\t is a  subsidiary bank\twhich  falls
\nwithin the  definition of  section 2(k) of the State Bank of
\nIndia (Subsidiary  Banks) Act,\t1959. It  was established by
\nthe Central  Government in  accordance with  the Act of 1959
\nand is not a ‘company’ and
\n347<\/span>
\ntherefore, not\ta banking  company. It\tmust follow that the
\ndecretal debt  which the  respondent is liable to pay to the
\nappellant is  not owed\tto a  banking company. It was indeed
\nnot owed  to any  banking company  at all  on July 14, 1970,
\nbeing the  date on  which the Act came into force. It may be
\nrecalled that  the respondent  owed a  certain sum exceeding
\nthree thousand\trupees to  the Kottayam\t Orient Bank Ltd., a
\nbanking company,  on an\t overdraft account.  That  Bank\t was
\namalgamated with the appellant Bank with effect from May 16,
\n1961, as  a result of which the latter acquired the right to
\nrecover the amount from the respondent. It filed Suit No. 28
\nof 1963 to recover that amount and obtained a decree against
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     lt is precisely this small conspectus of facts, namely,
\nthat the  amount was  at one  time owed to a banking company
\nbut was not owed to a banking company at the commencement of
\nthe Act,  which raises\tthe question  as  regards  the\ttrue
\ninterpretation of clause (1) of section 2 (4).\n<\/p>\n
      The  fact that the amount which the respondent owes to
\nthe appellant  was not owed to a banking company on the date
\non which  the Act came into force, the appellant not being a
\nbanking company,  does not  provide a  final solution to the
\nproblem under  consideration. The  reason for  this is\tthat
\nclause (1)  of section 2(4) speaks of a debt “due before the
\ncommencement” of  the Act  to any  banking company,  thereby
\npurporting to  make the state of affairs existing before the
\ncommencement of\t the Act decisive of the application of that
\nclause. The  contention of the learned Attorney General, who
\nled the\t argument on  behalf of\t the appellant,\t is that the
\nrespondent owed\t the debt before the commencement of the Act
\nto a  banking  company\tand,  therefore,  the  appellant  is
\nentitled to  claim the benefit of the exclusion provided for
\nin clause  (1). The  argument is  that, for  the purposes of
\nclause (1),  it does  not matter to whom the debt is owed on
\nthe date  of the commencement of the Act: what matters is to
\nwhom the debt was owed before the commencement of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Attorney General is apparently justified in
\nmaking this  submission which rests on the plain language of
\nclause (1)  of section\t2(4), the plain, grammatical meaning
\nof the\twords of the statute being generally a safe guide to
\ntheir interpretation.  But having  considered the submission
\nin its\tdiverse implications,  we find\tourselves unable  to
\naccept it.\n<\/p>\n
348<\/span><\/p>\n
In order to judge the validity of the submission made by the
\nAttorney General,  one must  of necessity have regard to the
\nobject and  purpose of\tthe Act. The object of the Act is to
\nrelieve agricultural  indebtedness. In order to achieve that
\nobject,\t the   legislature  conferred  certain\tbenefits  on
\nagricultural debtors  but, while  doing so,  it\t excluded  a
\nclass of  debts from the operation of the Act, namely, debts
\nof the\tdescription mentioned  in  clauses  (a)\t to  (n)  of
\nsection\t 2(4).\tOne  class  of\tdebts  taken  out  from\t the
\noperation of  the Act is debts owed to banking companies, as
\nspecified in  clause (1).  The reason  for this exception is
\nobvious. It  is notorious  that money  lenders exploit needy
\nagriculturists and  impose upon them harsh and onerous terms
\nwhile granting\tloans to them. But that charge does not hold
\ntrue in\t the case of representative institutions, like banks
\nand banking  companies. They are governed by their rules and
\nregulations which  do not  change from\tdebtor to debtor and
\nwhich, if  any thing,  are intended  to benefit\t the  weaker
\nsections of  society. It is for this reason that debts owing
\nto such\t creditors are\texcepted from  the operation  of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     A necessary  implication and  an inevitable consequence
\nof the\tAttorney General’s  argument is\t that  in  order  to
\nattract the  application of  clause (1) of section 2 (4), it
\nis enough to show that the debt was, at some time before the
\ncommencement of\t the Act, owed to a banking company; it does
\nnot matter whether it was in its inception owed to a private
\nmoney-lender and,  equally so, whether it was owed to such a
\nmoney-lender on\t the date  of the  commencement of  the Act.
\nThis argument,\tif accepted,  will defeat the very object of
\nthe Act.  The sole test which assumes relevance according to
\nthat argument  is whether  the debt  was owed,\tat any\ttime
\nbefore the commencement of the Act, to a banking company. It
\nmeans that it is enough for the purpose of attracting clause
\n(1) that,  at some  time in  the past,\tmay be in a chain of
\ntransfers, the\tright to  recover the  debt was\t vested in a
\nbanking company.  A simple  illustration will  elucidate the
\npoint. If  a private  money-lender had\tinitially granted  a
\nloan to\t an agricultural  debtor on  usurious terms  but the
\nright to  recover that\tdebt came  to be vested in a banking
\ncompany some  time before  the commencement  of the Act, the
\ndebtor will  not be  able to avail himself of the benefit of
\nthe provisions\tof the\tAct because,  at some  point of time
\nbefore the  commencement of  the Act, the debt was owed to a
\nbanking company.  And  this  would  be\tso  irrespective  of
\nwhether the  banking company  continues to  be\tentitled  to
\nrecover the debt on the date of the commencement of the Act.
\nEven if it assigns its
\n349<\/span>
\nright to  a private  individual, the debtor will be debarred
\nfrom claiming  the benefit  of the  Act because,  what is of
\ndecisive importance,  according to  the\t Attorney  General’s
\nargument  is   the  fact   whether,  some  time\t before\t the
\ncommencement of\t the Act,  the debt  was due  to  a  banking
\ncompany. We do not think the Legislature could have intended
\nto produce such a startling result.\n<\/p>\n
     The plain\tlanguage of  the clause,  if interpreted  so
\nplainly, will  frustrate rather\t than further  the object of
\nthe Act.  Relief to  agricultural debtors, who have suffered
\nthe oppression\tof  private  moneylenders,  has\t to  be\t the
\nguiding\t star\twhich\tmust   illumine\t  and\tinform\t the
\ninterpretation of the beneficent provisions of the Act. When
\nclause (1) speaks of a debt due “before the commencement” of
\nthe Act\t to a banking company, it does undoubtedly mean what
\nit says,  namely, that\tthe debt  must have  been due  to  a
\nbanking company\t before the  commencement of the Act. But it
\nmeans something\t more: that  the debt  must also be due to a
\nbanking company at the commencement of the Act. We quite see
\nthat we\t are reading  into the clause the word “at” which is
\nnot there  because, whereas it speaks of a debt due “before”
\nthe commencement  of the  Act, we  are reading the clause as
\nrelating to  a debt  which was\tdue “at”  and  “before”\t the
\ncommencement of\t the Act  to any  banking company.  We would
\nhave  normally\t hesitated  to\tfashion\t the  clause  by  so
\nrestructuring it  but we  see no  escape from  that  course,
\nsince that  is the only rational manner by which we can give
\nmeaning and  content to\t it, so\t as to further the object of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  one more\t aspect of the matter which needs to
\nbe amplified  and it  is this:\tWhen clause  (1) speaks of a
\ndebt due  before the  commencement of the Act, what it truly
\nmeans to convey is not that the debt should have been due to
\na  banking   company  at  some\tpoint  of  time\t before\t the
\ncommencement of\t the Act,  but that  it must be a debt which
\nwas incurred  from a banking company before the commencement
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the application of clause (1) is subject to these
\nconditions: (i)\t The debt  must have  been incurred  from  a
\nbanking company;  (ii) the  debt must  have been so incurred
\nbefore the  commencement of the Act, and (iii) the debt must
\nbe due\tto a banking company on the date of the commencement
\nof the\tAct. These are cumulative conditions and unless each
\none of\tthem is\t satisfied, clause (1) will not be attracted
\nand the exclusion provided for there-\n<\/p>\n
350<\/span><\/p>\n
in will\t not be\t available as an answer to the relief sought
\nby the debtor in terms of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  was drawn by the Attorney General to the
\nprovisions of  sections 2  (4) and  2 (4) (j) of the Act the
\nformer using  the expression “on or before the commencement”
\nof the\tAct and the latter “at the commencement” of the Act.
\nRelying upon  the different  phraseology used  in these\t two
\nprovisions and\tin clause  (1) inter  se, he  urged that the
\nlegislature has\t chosen its words carefully and that when it
\nintended to  make the  state of\t affairs existing  “at”\t the
\ncommencement of the Act relevant, it has said so. We are not
\nimpressed by  this submission. Section 2 (4) which defines a
\n“debt” had  to provide\tthat debt means a liability due from
\nor  incurred   by  an\tagriculturist  “on   or\t before\t the
\ncommencement” of  the Act.  It could not be that liabilities
\nincurred before the commencement of the Act would be “debts”
\neven though  they are not due on the date of commencement of
\nthe Act.  The words  “on or  before the commencement” of the
\nAct are\t used in  the context  of liabilities  “due from  or
\nincurred” by  an agriculturist.\t For similar reasons, clause\n<\/p>\n
(j) had\t to use\t the expression “at the commencement” of the
\nAct, the  subject matter  of that  clause being debts due to
\nwidows. The  benefit of the exclusion provided for in clause\n<\/p>\n
(j) could only be given to widows to whom debts were due “at
\nthe commencement” of the Act. The legislature could not have
\ngiven that benefit in respect of debts which were due before
\nbut not\t at the\t commencement of the Act. Thus, the language
\nused in\t the two  provisionals on which the learned Attorney
\nGeneral relies\tis suited  to the  particular subject matter
\nwith which  those provisions  deal and\tis apposite  to\t the
\ncontext in which that language is used. We have given to the
\nprovision of  clause  (1)  an  interpretation  which,  while
\ngiving effect  to the  intention of  the legislature  in the
\nlight of  the object of the Act, brings out the true meaning
\nof the\tprovision contained  in\t that  clause.\tThe  literal
\nconstruction will  create an anomalous situation and lead to
\nabsurdidities and injustice. That construction has therefore
\nto be avoided.\n<\/p>\n
     Any other\tinterpretation of  clause (1)  will make  it
\nvulnerable to  a constitutional\t challenge on  the ground of
\ninfraction of  the guarantee  of equality. The object of the
\nAct  being   to\t confer\t certain  benefits  on\tagricultural
\ndebtors, the legislature would be under an obligation, while
\nexcepting a  certain category of debts from the operation of
\nthe Act, to make a classification which will answer the test
\nof article 14. Debts incurred from banking companies and due
\nto such\t companies at the commencement of the Act would fall
\ninto
\n351<\/span>
\na separate  and distinct class, the classification bearing a
\nnexus with  A the  object of the Act. If debts incurred from
\nprivate money-lenders are brought within the terms of clause
\n(1) on\tthe theory  that the  right to\trecover the debt had
\npassed\ton   to\t a   banking  company  sometime\t before\t the
\ncommencement   of    the   Act,\t   the\t clause\t  would\t  be
\nunconstitutional for  the reason that it accords a different
\ntreatment to  a category  of debts without a valid basis and
\nwithout the classification having a nexus with the object of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
      In  State of  Rajasthan v. Mukanchand section 2 (e) of
\nJagirdar’s Debt\t Reduction Act, 1937 was held invalid on the
\nground that it infringed Article 14 of the Constitution. The
\nobject of  that Act was to reduce the debts secured on jagir
\nlands which  had been  resumed under  the provisions  of the
\nRajasthan Land\tReforms and  Resumption of  Jagirs Act.\t The
\nJagirdar’s capacity  to pay  debts had\tbeen reduced  by the
\nresumption of  his lands  and the  object of  the Act was to
\nameliorate his\tcondition. It  was held that no intelligible
\nprinciple underlies the exempted category of debts mentioned
\nin section 2(e) since the fact that the debts were owed to a
\ngovernment or  to a local authority or similar other bodies,
\nhad no\treal relationship  with\t the  object  sought  to  be
\nachieved by  the Act.  In Fatehand  Himmatlal  v.  Slate  of
\nMaharashtra,  in   which  the\tconstitutionality   of\t the
\nMaharashtra Debt  Relief Act,  1976 was\t challenged, it\t was
\nheld by this Court that the exemption granted by the statute
\nto credit  institutions and  banks  was\t reasonable  because
\nliabilities due\t to Government,\t local authorities and other
\ncredit institutions  were not  tainted by  the view  of\t the
\ndebtor’s exploitation.\tFatehchand would be an authority for
\nthe proposition\t that clause  (1), in the manner interpreted
\nby us, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri  Vaidyanathan,   who\tappears\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent, contended  that the\t claim made by the appellant
\nBank falls  squarely under section 2 (4) (a) (ii) of the Act
\nand that  if the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of
\nthe   specific\t  provision   contained\t  therein,   it\t  is
\nimpermissible to  consider whether  it can claim the benefit
\nof some\t other exclusionary  clause like clause (1). Counsel
\nis right to the extent that the appellant is not entitled to
\nclaim the  benefit of  the provision  contained in section 2
\n(4)(a)(ii) because of Proviso B to that
\n352<\/span>
\nsection. The  simple reason in support of this conclusion is
\nthat the right of the appellant to recover the debt arose by
\nreason of a transfer effected by operation of law subsequent
\nto July\t 1, 1957.  We have already dealt with that aspect of
\nthe matter. But we are not inclined to accept the submission
\nthat if\t a particular  case falls under a specific clause of
\nsection 2  (4)\twhich  is  found  to  be  inapplicable,\t the
\ncreditor is debarred from claiming the benefit of any of the
\nother clauses  (a) to  (n). The\t object of  the exclusionary
\nclauses is  to take  category  of  debts  from\tout  of\t the
\noperation of  the Act  and there  is no\t reason\t why,  if  a
\nspecific clause\t is inapplicable,  the creditor\t cannot seek
\nthe benefit  of the other clauses. The exclusionary clauses,
\ntogether, are  certainly exhaustive  of\t the  categories  of
\nexcepted debts\tbut to make those clauses mutually exclusive
\nwill be\t to impair unduly the efficacy of the very object of
\ntaking away  a certain\tclass of debts from the operation of
\nthe Act.  We are  not  therefore,  inclined  to\t accept\t the
\nsubmission made\t by the\t learned counsel  that section 2 (4)\n<\/p>\n
(a) (ii)  is exhaustive\t of all\t circumstances\tin  which  a
\nsubsidiary bank\t can claim  the benefit of the exceptions to
\nsection 2 (4).\n<\/p>\n
      For these reasons we affirm the view of the High Court
\nthat the exclusion provided for in  clause  (1)\t of  section
\n2 (4)  of the  Act can be availed of if the debt is due to a
\nbanking company\t at the time of the commencement of the Act.
\nWe have\t already indicated  that the  other condition  which
\nmust be satisfied in order that clause (1) may apply is that
\nthe debt  must have  been incurred  from a  banking  company
\nbefore the commencement of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     For these reasons we dismiss the appeal. Appellant will
\npay the costs of the respondent throughout.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n353<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1744, 1982 SCR (1) 338 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj) PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHAMMED MOHAMMED KHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/08\/1981 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) SEN, A.P. […]<\/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-66961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981 - 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\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981\" \/>\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=\"1981-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-24T21:38:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-24T21:38:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981\"},\"wordCount\":4779,\"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\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981\",\"name\":\"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-24T21:38:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981\"}]},{\"@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":"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981 - 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\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-24T21:38:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981","datePublished":"1981-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-24T21:38:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981"},"wordCount":4779,"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\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981","name":"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-24T21:38:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-travancore-vs-mohammed-mohammed-khan-on-21-august-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank Of Travancore vs Mohammed Mohammed Khan on 21 August, 1981"}]},{"@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\/66961","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=66961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}