{"id":82517,"date":"2006-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006"},"modified":"2019-03-15T11:56:54","modified_gmt":"2019-03-15T06:26:54","slug":"punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  9688-9699 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nPunjab & Sind Bank\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAllahabad Bank & Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment delivered
\nby a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in an appeal
\nfiled by the appellant, the defendant in the suit filed by
\nrespondent no.1-Bank. Learned Single Judge in the said suit
\nheld that there was no need to adopt procedure  indicated by
\nthis Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v.
\nCollector of Central Excise<\/a> (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 432)
\n(described hereinafter case as ONGC I Case ).  The Division
\nBench affirmed the view of learned Single Judge.  The
\ncorrectness of the view expressed by the learned Single Judge
\nand the Division Bench forms the subject-matter of challenge
\nin this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The suit was filed by the respondent no.1-Bank against
\nthe appellant-Bank along with 11 other defendants with the
\nfollowing prayers:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tDeclaration that the Banker’s cheque copy
\nwhereof is annexed Marked A hereto is void
\nand not binding on the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tDecree of Rs.5,62,66,671\/- against the
\ndefendants jointly and\/or severally and\/or
\nsuch of them for such amount as this Hon’ble
\nCourt may deem fit and proper.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tDecree of Rs.5,62,66,671\/- against the
\ndefendant no.1 together with interest.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tInterest including interim interest as claimed
\nin paragraph 29;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tReceiver;\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tCosts;\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tFurther any other reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
\tAn application was filed by the appellant-Bank for
\ndismissal of the suit on the ground that the modalities
\nindicated in ONGC-I case (supra) were not followed.  Learned
\nSingle Judge held that the decision has to be read in the
\ncontext which was passed.  This Court never intended to
\nextinguish the right to sue. Intention was to avoid litigation
\nwhen the parties are government or its undertakings.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe order was challenged before the Division Bench
\nwhich, inter-alia, upheld view of learned Single Judge with
\nsome additional reasons.  We shall deal with the reasoning in
\ndetail later.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe view in ONGC-I case (supra) was further elaborated
\nin Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. C.C.E.<\/a> 1995 (Supp.) 4
\nSCC 541) (For sake of convenience described as ONGC-II).  It
\nwas noted in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. C.C.E.<\/a>
\n(2004(6) SCC 437) (for convenience described as ONGC-III)
\nthat some doubts and problems arose in the working out of
\nthe arrangements in terms of the order of this Court dated
\n11.10.1991 ONGC-II case (supra). It was noted in ONGC-III
\ncase (supra) as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“There are some doubts and problems that
\nhave arisen in the working out of these
\narrangements which require to be clarified and
\nsome creases ironed out.  Some doubts persist
\nas to the precise import and implications of the
\nwords “and recourse to litigation should be
\navoided”.  It is clear that the order of this
\nCourt is not to the effect that  nor can that be
\ndone  so far as the Union of India and its
\nstatutory corporations are concerned, their
\nstatutory remedies are effaced. Indeed, the
\npurpose of the constitution of the High-
\npowered Committee was not to take away
\nthose remedies.  The relevant portion of the
\norder reads: (SCC pp. 541-42 para 3)<\/p>\n
“3.\tWe direct that the Government
\nof India shall set up a committee
\nconsisting of representatives from
\nthe Ministry of Industry, the Bureau
\nof Public Enterprises and the
\nMinistry of Law, to monitor disputes
\nbetween Ministry and Ministry of
\nthe Government of India, Ministry
\nand public sector undertakings of
\nthe Government of India and public
\nsector undertakings in between
\nthemselves to ensure that no
\nlitigation comes to court or to a
\ntribunal without the matter having
\nbeen first examined by the
\nCommittee and its clearance for
\nlitigation.  The Government may
\ninclude a representative of the
\nMinistry concerned in a specific case
\nand one from the Ministry of
\nFinance in the Committee.  Senior
\nofficers only should be nominated so
\nthat the Committee would function
\nwith status, control and discipline.”\n<\/p>\n
It is abundantly clear that the machinery
\ncontemplated is only to ensure that no
\nlitigation comes to court without the parties
\nhaving had an opportunity of conciliation
\nbefore an in-house committee.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe matter was again examined in the case of Chief
\nConservator of Forest v. Collector<\/a> (2003(3) SCC 472). In Para
\n14 and 15 it was noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article
\n131 confers original jurisdiction on the
\nSupreme Court in regard to a dispute between
\ntwo States of the Union of India or between
\none or more States and the Union of India. It
\nwas not contemplated by the framers of the
\nConstitution or the C.P.C. that two
\ndepartments of a State or the Union of India
\nwill fight a litigation in a court of law. It is
\nneither appropriate nor permissible for two
\ndepartments of a State or the Union of India to
\nfight litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a
\ncourse cannot but be detrimental to the public
\ninterest as it also entails avoidable wastage of
\npublic money and time. Various departments
\nof the Government are its limbs and, therefore,
\nthey must act in co-ordination and not in
\nconfrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one
\ndepartment against the other by invoking the
\nextraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is
\nnot only against the propriety and polity as it
\nsmacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to
\nthe basic concept of law which requires that
\nfor suing or being sued, there must be either a
\nnatural or a juristic person. The States\/Union
\nof India must evolve a mechanism to set at rest
\nall inter-departmental controversies at the
\nlevel of the Government and such matters
\nshould not be carried to a court of law for
\nresolution of the controversy. In the case of
\ndisputes between public sector undertakings
\nand Union of India, this Court in Oil and
\nNatural Gas Commission v. Collector of
\nCentral Excise<\/a> (1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 432)
\ncalled upon the Cabinet Secretary to handle
\nsuch matters. In Oil and Natural Gas
\nCommission & Anr. v. Collector of Central
\nExcise<\/a> (1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541), this Court
\ndirected the Central Government to set up a
\nCommittee consisting of representatives from
\nthe Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public
\nEnterprises and the Ministry of Law, to
\nmonitor dispute between Ministry and Ministry
\nof the Government of India, Ministry and
\npublic sector undertakings of the Government
\nof India and public sector undertakings in
\nbetween themselves, to ensure that no
\nlitigation comes to court or to a Tribunal
\nwithout the matter having been first examined
\nby the Committee and its clearance for
\nlitigation. The Government may include a
\nrepresentative of the Ministry concerned in a
\nspecific case and one from the Ministry of
\nFinance in the Committee. Senior officers only
\nshould be nominated so that the Committee
\nwould function with status, control and
\ndiscipline.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts of this appeal, noticed above,
\nmake out a strong case that there is felt need
\nof setting up of similar committees by the State
\nGovernment also to resolve the controversy
\narising between various departments of the
\nState or the State and any of its undertakings.
\nIt would be appropriate for the State
\nGovernments to set up a Committee consisting
\nof the Chief Secretary of the State, the
\nSecretaries of the concerned departments, the
\nSecretary of Law and where financial
\ncommitments are involved, the Secretary of
\nFinance. The decision taken by such a
\ncommittee shall be binding on all the
\ndepartments concerned and shall be the stand
\nof the Government. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe directions as noted above were quoted in Mahanagar
\nTelephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board, Direct
\nTaxes and<\/a> another (2004(6) SCC 431) and were adopted in
\nparagraph 8. It was noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Undoubtedly, the right to enforce a right
\nin a court of law cannot be effaced. However, it
\nmust be remembered that courts are
\noverburdened with a large number of cases.
\nThe majority of such cases pertain to
\nGovernment Departments and\/or public sector
\nundertakings. As is stated in Chief
\nConservator of Forests’ case [2003] 3 SCC 472
\nit was not contemplated by the framers of the
\nConstitution or the Civil Procedure Code that
\ntwo departments of a State or Union of India
\nand\/or a department of the Government and a
\npublic sector undertaking fight a litigation in a
\ncourt of law. Such a course is detrimental to
\npublic interest as it entails avoidable wastage
\nof public money and time. These are all limbs
\nof the Government and must act in co-
\nordination and not confrontation. The
\nmechanism set up by this court is not, as
\nsuggested by Mr. Andhyarujina, only to
\nconciliate between Government Departments.
\nIt is also set up for purposes of ensuring that
\nfrivolous disputes do not come before courts
\nwithout clearance from the High Powered
\nCommittee. If it can, the High Powered
\nCommittee will resolve the dispute. If the
\ndispute is not resolved the Committee would
\nundoubtedly give clearance. However, there
\ncould also be frivolous litigation proposed by a
\ndepartment of the Government or a public
\nsector undertaking. This could be prevented by
\nthe High Powered Committee. In such cases
\nthere is no question of resolving the dispute.
\nThe Committee only has to refuse permission
\nto litigate. No right of the Department\/public
\nsector undertaking is affected in such a case.
\nThe litigation being of a frivolous nature must
\nnot be brought to court. To be remembered
\nthat in almost all cases one or the other party
\nwill not be happy with the decision of the High
\nPowered Committee. The dissatisfied party will
\nalways claim that its rights are affected, when
\nin fact, no right is affected. The Committee is
\nconstituted of highly placed officers of the
\nGovernment, who do not have an interest in
\nthe dispute, it is thus expected that their
\ndecision will be fair and honest. Even if the
\nDepartment\/public sector undertaking finds
\nthe decision unpalatable, discipline requires
\nthat they abide by it. Otherwise the whole
\npurpose of this exercise will be lost and every
\nparty against whom the decision is given will
\nclaim that they have been wronged and that
\ntheir rights are affected. This should not be
\nallowed to be done.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe ONGC I to III cases (supra), Chief Conservator’s case
\n(supra) and Mahanagar Telephone’s case (supra) deal with
\ndisputes relating to Central Government, State Government
\nand Public Sector Undertakings. They have no application to
\nthe facts of these cases as the High Court has not indicated
\nany reason for its abrupt conclusion that the writ petitioners
\nare Public Sector Undertakings. In the absence of a factual
\ndetermination in that regard, the decisions can have no
\napplication.\n<\/p>\n
These aspects were recently highlighted in U.P.S.E.B.
\nand Anr. v. Sant Kabir Sahakari Katai Mills Ltd.<\/a> (2005 (7) SCC\n<\/p>\n
576).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Division Bench of the High Court did not adopt the
\nmodalities indicated by this Court in the various decisions
\nreferred to above with the following reasoning:\n<\/p>\n
“Mr. Mitra supported the judgment of the
\nHon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Kumar Seth delivered
\nin the court below and, with respect; we do not
\nfind anything to differ from His Lordship’s
\nviews in this matter.  We would, however, have
\nto add only one point thereto which we
\nconsider to be the deciding factor.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent\/plaintiff  here has alleged
\nthat the Punjab & Sind Bank (no doubt
\nvicariously, and because of persons working of
\nthe Bank) acted fraudulently, or at least
\nnegligently, and sent for clearing a cheque
\nwhich was worthless, and thus brought into
\ncirculation Rs.3.10 crore which should not
\nhave been brought into circulation at all.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese allegations have not yet been
\npronounced upon by any Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf the above decision of the Government
\nCommittee for settlement of disputes is
\nbinding on the High Court, then and in that
\nevent, the High Court is not entitled to try the
\nsuit, and must exonerate the Punjab & Sind
\nBank (and therefore indirectly all its then
\nconcerned employees) of both fraud and
\nnegligence.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Chatterjee submitted that one is not
\nremedy less, and in case the decision is not
\nreasonable, it could be challenged in
\nappropriate writ proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\tBut the point which falls for decision is,
\ncan a Government Committee, which is only a
\npart of the administrative machinery of the
\nUnion of India, stop by its administrative
\ndecision, the judicial process of adjudication,
\nwhich is the job of that wing of the Union of
\nIndia, which is known as the judiciary.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are of the opinion that the dicta in the
\nONGC’s case, if given their interned meaning,
\nwould, have the above effect, of impeding the
\njudicial process by having recourse to decision
\nof an administrative body, as the first and
\npermanent deciding body.\n<\/p>\n
We are of the opinion, and we say this
\nwith the greatest of respect, which is at our
\ncommand, that this is wholly unconstitutional.
\nIt is not necessary to enlarge on a matter so
\nfundamental because the separation of the
\nlegislature, the judiciary and the executive is
\nmore basis than anything else in our
\nConstitution as it stands today. We are
\naccordingly of the opinion, and this is again
\nsaid with as much respect before, that the
\ndecision in the ONGC’s case is itself of an
\nadministrative nature and has to force to
\nemasculate the judiciary.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(Underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
To say the least the view expressed by the Division Bench
\nof the High Court is confusing and patently shows that the
\nratio of the various decisions has not been understood in the
\nproper perspective.  To say that the decision in the ONGC-I
\ncase (supra) was of an administrative nature though a judicial
\norder shows non-application of mind.  Any order passed in a
\njudicial proceeding, (much less an order passed by this Court)
\ncan by no stretch of imagination be described as one of
\n“administrative nature”.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances we set aside the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench, remit the matter to the High Court for fresh
\nconsideration keeping in view the modalities and principles set
\nout by this Court in the various decisions referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as
\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9688-9699 of 2003 PETITIONER: Punjab & Sind Bank RESPONDENT: Allahabad Bank & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-82517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 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\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-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=\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-15T06:26:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T06:26:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2362,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T06:26:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 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":"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 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\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-15T06:26:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T06:26:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006"},"wordCount":2362,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006","name":"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T06:26:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-sind-bank-vs-allahabad-bank-anr-on-28-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab & Sind Bank vs Allahabad Bank & Anr on 28 March, 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\/82517","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=82517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}