Allowed

State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Bishnoi

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2019SAW/45/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed the special appeal by condoning the limitation delay and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. Relying on a prior decision by the same Court (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.1063/2018), the Court set aside the order holding against the Bank regarding Individual Business Correspondences corporatization.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal is allowed; the appeal order dated 31.05.2018 is set aside; the writ petition is dismissed.

State Bank of India Vs Rajendra Kumar Bishnoi — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 45/2019

¶4

State Bank of India through its Chairman, Corporate Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614

¶5

The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614

¶6

The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶7

The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

The Deputy General Manager, (B & O) Administrative and Business Office, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III, Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Rajendra Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Bhakhara Ram, Aged about 28 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Harchandiyo Ki Dhani, Sanwa, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer (Raj).

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chayan Bohra on behalf of Dr. Sachin Acharya. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sukesh Bhati.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶16

Order

¶17

18/01/2019

¶18

This special appeal is directed against judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent questioning the action of the appellants in corporatization of Individual Business Correspondences (BCs) has been allowed and the appellants herein are directed to continue the respondent as BC directly with

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[SAW-45/2019]

¶21

the appellant-Bank and not to terminate his service so as to replace him by another set of contractual employees or Corporate Business Correspondents, unless there is a performance deficit on his part.

¶22

Issue notice.

¶23

Mr. Sukesh Bhati, accepts notice for the respondent.

¶24

The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 165 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application seeking condonation of delay is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶25

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this appeal is set at rest by this Court vide decision dated 28.11.2018 rendered in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1063/2018 (State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Kumar & Ors.) and accordingly this special appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Accordingly, this special appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 28.11.2018 rendered in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Kumar & Ors. ( supra ). The order under appeal dated 31.05.2018 is set aside and the writ petition preferred by the respondent is dismissed.

¶27

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶28

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶29

11-DJ/-

State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Bishnoi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Bishnoi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs Gautam Sharma

U.O.I. and Ors. Vs Akeel Mohd Nayak and Anr.

Smt. Chotta Devi Vs Smt. Kamla Motda

Deepak Shrimali Vs Central Registrar,Coop.Societies and Ors.

Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.