Disposed

Subhash Kumar Jha v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Jul 2017W.P.(C)/2626/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his listing on a bank's caution list and resultant blacklisting by other banks. The court did not decide on merits but directed the petitioner to file a representation, with the primary respondent to consider it and pass an order subsequently.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation within two weeks; primary respondent to consider and pass order within six weeks.

Subhash Kumar Jha Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~9

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2626/2017

¶4

SUBHASH KUMAR JHA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr M. M. Singh and Mr M. K. Gupta, Advocates alongwith petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr S. K. Sharma, Advocate for R-1. Mr Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-2. Ms Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Mr Vyom Raghuvanshi, Advocates for R- 3.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

¶10

19.07.2017

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-

¶12

“ a) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent no.2 to produce the caution list and thereafter direct them to remove the name of the Petitioner from the Caution list and circulate the same amongst its members.

¶13

b) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to include the name of the Petitioner in the list of its Advocates.

¶14

c) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 to remove the name of the Petitioner from the Black list issued vide letter dated 18.2.2017 and include the name of the Petitioner in the list of Advocates and circulate to

¶15

the branches.”

¶16

At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press prayer (b) and has limited the present petition to seeking other reliefs as prayed for.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner stems from the fact that respondent no.1 has placed the petitioner on a caution list and also communicated the same to respondent no.2. Consequently, respondent no.2 has also disseminated this information to other banks (including respondent no.3) and based on such information respondent no.3 has black listed the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been unable to place all the relevant facts before respondent no.1. In view of this submission, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that respondent no.1 will have no difficulty in considering the petitioner’s representation, if made, and pass a fresh order.

¶19

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing that the petitioner may file a representation within a period of two weeks. In the event the petitioner does so, respondent no.1 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶20

In the event, the respondent no.1 decides in favour of the petitioner and withdraws its decision to put the name of the petitioner on the caution list, respondent no.1 will communicate the same to respondent no.2 who in turn shall take the necessary steps to inform other banks (including

¶21

respondent no.3). Respondent no.3 shall also take consequential steps and recall its action of blacklisting the petitioner.

¶22

It is clarified that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case set up by the petitioner.

¶23

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶24

The date already fixed, that is, 01.09.2017 stands cancelled.

¶25

Order dasti.

¶26

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶27

JULY 19, 2017 MK

Subhash Kumar Jha v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Kumar Jha v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Jain & Anr. Vs Dy. Director of Education & Ors.

Kamla Gautam Vs the President/ Secretary, the Jawala Coop. Urban Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. & Ors.

Janta Motor Transport(Regd) Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Naroj Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Anr.

Brig. (Retd.) Rakesh Katyal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nisha Kumari Vs Director General, Csir Anusandhan & Ors.

D.B. Power Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Reshma & Ors.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jaiveer & Anr.

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jeewan Krishan Bhatt & Ors.

Suraj Prakash & Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Kamal Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tara Chand & Ors.

Sudha Gupta Vs the State