Dismissed¶33

Manpreet Singh v. Bank of Baroda

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2026LPA/747/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, LPA-747-2026 (O&M), decided 22.05.2026; Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor, JJ.; appellant Manpreet Saini (advocate K.K. Gupta) v. Bank of Baroda; service bond executed before overseas duty; three-year service undertaking; breach of bond; recovery by bank upheld; policy cap of Rs.10 lakh versus bond sum of Rs.20 lakh; approbation and reprobation; GST on bond amount left open with liberty to file review before learned Single Judge; condonation of 3 days' delay in re-filing appeal; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 3 days in re-filing the appeal condoned; no relief granted to the appellant on the merits of the appeal. ¶33

Manpreet Singh Vs Bank of Baroda — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 3 days in re-filing the appeal condoned; no relief granted to the appellant on the merits of the appeal.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned Single Judge's dismissal of the appellant's writ petition upholding the respondent-bank's recovery under the service bond. +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

There is no illegality on facts or in law in the action of the respondent-bank, and therefore no good ground for the Division Bench to interfere with the learned Single Judge's judgment.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 3 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal was satisfactorily explained; the application (CM-1867-LPA-2026) is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶13

Key takeaways

Having voluntarily executed the bond, without any demur, to pay Rs.20 Lakh in case of default, the appellant cannot now resile from it and challenge it on the pretext of a contrary policy permitting recovery of only Rs.10 Lakh.ratio¶23
If the GST argument was in fact advanced before the learned Single Judge and not dealt with, the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to approach the learned Single Judge by filing a review application to that extent.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. The Division Bench (Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor, JJ.) declined to interfere with the learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition filed by Manpreet Saini, a bank employee who had voluntarily executed a bond before proceeding on overseas duty, categorically undertaking to work at least three years with the Bank of Baroda on return, but who worked only two months after return and left the job. The Court held that, having executed the bond 'with open eyes' agreeing to pay Rs.20 Lakh in case of default, the appellant could not challenge it on the pretext of a contrary policy under which only Rs.10 Lakh could have been demanded, this being violative of principles of approbation and reprobation. On the contention that GST had been unauthorizedly demanded on the Rs.20 Lakh bond amount — an aspect said not to have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge — the Court observed it was unclear whether the argument had been advanced and left the appellant free to seek a review before the learned Single Judge. Delay of 3 days in re-filing the appeal was condoned (CM-1867-LPA-2026). All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

130 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶3

LPA-7 4 7-2026 (O&M) Date o f Decision: 22.05.2026

¶4

Manpreet Sai n i …Appellant

Vs.

Bank of Baro d a

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

¶9

Present: M r. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for t h e appellant. ***

¶10

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

¶11

CM-1867-LPA-2026

¶12

D elay of 3 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal, has bee n satisfactorily explained.

¶13

I n that view of the matter, the a pplication is allowed and dela y of 3 days in r e -filing the appeal, is condoned.

¶14

LPA-747-2026 (O&M)

¶15

L earned Single Judge has dismi s sed the writ petition filed by th e appellant aft e r noticing that the bond was voluntarily executed by th e appellant bef o re she was sent abroad on ov e rseas duty, which categoricall y provided tha t on return she shall work at least for three years with th e respondent – b ank.

¶16

T he appellant did execute a bon d for such purposes voluntarily . It is admitted that on return from overseas d u ty, the appellant has worked fo r two months only and thereafter left the j o b. The learned Single Judge ,

¶17

RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.30 12:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

LPA-747-2026 (O&M)

¶19

[2]

¶20

therefore, has found that there has been a breach of undertaking given by the appellant in the bond.

¶21

Learned Single Judge, therefore, has found no exception to the action of the respondent – bank in effecting such recovery.

¶22

Though various submissions are advanced but we neither find any illegality on facts nor in law with respect to the action of the respondents – bank which persuaded us to interfere in the matter.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that as per the policy only Rs.10 Lakh could have been demanded. Undisputedly, the bond was executed by the appellant without any demur to pay Rs.20 Lakh in case of default. Having executed the bond with open eyes, now the appellant cannot go back and challenge the same on the pretext of contrary policy.

¶24

Learned Single Judge has found it to be violative of principles of approbation and reprobation.

¶25

On merits, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶26

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that one of the aspects pressed before the learned Single Judge was the unauthorized demand of GST on the amount of bond of Rs.20 Lakh. This aspect has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

We are not clear as to whether such argument was advanced or

¶28

not.

¶29

In the event such argument was advanced and has not been dealt with, the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to approach the learned Single Judge by filing a review application to such extent.

¶30

RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.30 12:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶31

LPA-747-2026 (O&M)

¶32

[3]

¶33

In such circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeals fails and is dismissed accordingly.

¶34

All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE

¶36

(ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 22.05.2026 rajesh . Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

¶37

RAJESH KUMAR 2026.05.30 12:51 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Manpreet Singh v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vijay Chaudhary and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Managing Director, the Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others Vs Manish and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Sanjay Kumar

State of Haryana and Others Vs Ram Chander and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Jabar Singh