Central Bank of India Vs Sanjay Sutradhar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

Central Bank of India Vs Sanjay Sutradhar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

CAN 1 of 2026 (condonation of the 70-day delay in filing the review) allowed and disposed of; RVW 29 of 2026 dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the Central Bank of India to the respondent employee Sanjay Sutradhar; CAN 2 of 2026 dismissed; in CPAN 1966 of 2025, rule issued against the alleged contemnors, returnable on 8th May, 2026, with the contemnors to appear virtually, and the applicant directed to provide the names of current incumbents, amend the contempt application and put in the requisites in course of the day.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 70 days in preferring the review application (RVW 29 of 2026) ought to be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

Sufficient grounds being available to indicate the delay in filing the review application, the delay of 70 days is condoned and CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment and order dated 27th October, 2025 of the Co-ordinate Bench calls for no review whatsoever; the findings establishing the master-servant relationship were sufficient and the alleged perversity does not survive.

Key takeaways

While an appointment letter is the first and most important evidence of a master-servant relationship, its absence is not fatal to determining that relationship where other surrounding evidence - such as continuous payment of salary and allowances - exists; the discussions of the Tribunal, the Single Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench to this effect are sufficient.ratio¶29
Consequent upon the dismissal of RVW 29 of 2026, CAN 2 of 2026 shall stand dismissed.ratio¶34
Taking a grim view of the conduct of the alleged contemnors in the absence of any affidavit in response to the contempt application, a rule is issued against them as prayed for; they are to be present virtually on the adjourned date and the rule is made returnable on 8th May, 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order dated 10-04-2026 of a two-Judge Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.). (i) CAN 1 of 2026 in RVW 29 of 2026: the delay of 70 days in preferring the review application is condoned on sufficient grounds and the application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) RVW 29 of 2026 (Central Bank of India v. Sanjay Sutradhar, lodged in MAT 197 of 2024): the Bank's review of the Co-ordinate Bench decision dated 27th October, 2025 - pressed on the plea of error apparent on the face of record, namely an alleged failure to notice perversity in the CGIT finding on the master-servant relationship where no appointment letter was issued - is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the Bank to the respondent employee Sanjay Sutradhar; the Court holds that absence of an appointment letter is not fatal to establishing a master-servant relationship where surrounding evidence such as continuous payment of salary and allowances exists, the findings of the Tribunal and the Single Bench being sufficient, and that the impugned judgment calls for no review; CAN 2 of 2026 consequently stands dismissed. (iii) CPAN 1966 of 2025 (Sanjay Sutradhar v. Lokesh Kumar Bhagat, Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India): referring to the Supreme Court decision dated 24.02.2026 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5/2026 in C.A. No. 7023/2025 (Israr Prasad & Ors. v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors.), paragraphs 27 to 30, and taking a grim view of the absence of any affidavit in response, rule is issued against the alleged contemnors, returnable on 8th May, 2026; the contemnors are to appear virtually and the applicant is to amend the application with the names of current incumbents and put in the requisites.

10-04-2026 ct no. 13 Sl. 3+4 sp

CPAN 1966 of 2025 Sanjay Sutradhar

-Versus-

Lokesh Kumar Bhagat, Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India.

In MAT 197 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 With CAN 2 of 2024 Central Bank of India

-Versus-

Sanjay Sutradhar

With RVW 29 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 Central Bank of India

-Versus-

Sanjay Sutradhar

Mr. Ranjay Dey, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Biswambhar Jha, Mr. H.K. Jha.

…for the appellant/Bank.

Mr. Pratik Majumder, Mr. Snehasish Dey.

..for the applicant in CPAN 1966 of 2025. …for the respondent no. 1 in RVW 29 of 2026.

Re: CAN 1 of 2026 in RVW 29 of 2026

CAN 1 of 2026 has been filed seeking

condonation of delay of 70 days in preferring the review application.

2

Sufficient grounds are available to indicate

the delay in filing the review application.

Hence, the delay is condoned.

Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of.

Re: RVW 29 of 2026

RVW 29 of 2026 is pressed on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of record in the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 27^th October, 2025 of which one of us (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) is present.

The crux of the review applicant is directed against the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment.

It is submitted by Mr. Dey, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the bank by reference to paragraph nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the said judgment that the Co-ordinate Bench while setting out the applicable law with regard to the power of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has failed to ignore the perversity in the finding of the CGIT. The perversity, according to Mr. Dey, is that the first part of the reference to the CGIT by the Central Bank mandated

3

examination whether there was masterservant relationship between the appellant and the respondent employee.

Admittedly there was no appointment letter issued by the Central Bank of India to the employee concerned. The Tribunal as well as the Single Bench of this Court had given sufficient finding of fact to establish such master-servant relationship based on the continuous payment of salary and allowances to the employee. There is sufficient discussion by Co-ordinate Bench as well as Single Bench and the Tribunal that while an appointment letter is the first and most important evidence of establishing such relationship, the absence of such appointment letter would not be fatal

in determining master-servant relationship if there is other surrounding evidence like continuous payment of salary and allowances. 9. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 27^th October, 2025, calls for no review whatsoever.

Hence, RVW 29 of 2026 is, thus, dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 25,000/- payable

4

by the Central Bank of India to the respondent employee Sanjay Sutradhar.

Consequently, CAN 2 of 2026 shall stand dismissed.

Re: CPAN 1966 of 2025

Reference in this regard is made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 24.02.2026 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5/2026 in C.A. No. 7023/2025 (Israr Prasad & Ors. Vs. Amarnath Prasad & Ors.), particularly, paragraphs 27 to 30 thereof.

Since there is no affidavit in response to the contempt application till date, this Court takes a grim view of the conduct of the alleged contemnors.

Let a rule be issued as prayed for against the alleged contemnors. The alleged contemnors shall be present virtually on the adjourned date.

Rule is made returnable on 8^th May, 2026.

The applicant shall provide the name of the current incumbent in the post of contemnors enlisted in the application and carry out the necessary amendments in the contempt application in course of the day.

5

The applicant shall put in the requisites for the aforesaid purpose in course of the day.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

Rule is drawn in a separate sheet.