Tag: #bank

-Report by A.K. Sooraj

The Delhi High Court in the case VIJAY KUMAR JHAMB vs. UNION OF INDIA held that the respondent overstepped its jurisdiction in opining that the bank clerk with 20 years of service was not entitled to any pension under the Pension Rules of the bank.

FACTS

The petitioner joined the services of the State Bank of India as a clerk on April 10, 1981, and was removed from service on the basis of an order dated November 24, 2004, pursuant to ex parte disciplinary proceedings held against him. The petitioner requested the release of his pension from the bank because he had more than 20 years of service and claimed that because he had submitted his retirement on March 10, 2004, he was entitled to it. After not hearing back, the petitioner brought a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on behalf of the All India Bank Staff Association. The bank asserted during the conciliation proceeding that the petitioner was not entitled to a pension under the applicable Pension Rules. The respondent issued the challenged order denying to refer the petitioner’s claim for adjudication after receiving a failure report from the Assistant Labour Commissioner serving as the Conciliation Officer due to the bank’s opposition to the petitioner’s claim. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The petitioner’s learned counsel argued that the impugned order was completely without jurisdiction since, according to Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act, the appropriate government lacked the authority to decide on the opposing positions expressed by the parties. He argued that the Conciliation Officer’s and the Appropriate Government’s jurisdictions were extremely constrained, and all that they needed to take into account was whether or not there was a dispute between the parties. A disagreement can only be completely frivolous before the government decides not to refer to it. It was the respondent’s responsibility to refer the case to the Industrial Tribunal in the current instance after it became clear that the bank was refusing to consider the petitioner’s demand for a pension. According to I.D. Act Section 12(5), the respondent was not permitted to perform an adjudicative duty. Therefore, he requested that the contested order be reversed and that the respondent immediately refer the petitioner’s claim to the Industrial Tribunal.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

Mr. Gogna, experienced counsel for the respondent, attempted to justify the assailed order by arguing that the appropriate government was required to determine whether a prima facie case was made out for adjudication prior to making a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. In exercising its authority under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act, he contends that the appropriate government is not compelled to refer to every issue; rather, it is expected to first determine whether a reference is warranted or not. The government is not compelled to make any references unless it is convinced that the claim has to be submitted for adjudication. Nevertheless, it had to give a justification for not referring the case to the Industrial Tribunal for resolution. As a result, he prayed that the petition be dismissed.

JUDGEMENT 

The judgement was given by considering the facts of the present case with the decision given in the case of M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1985) 2 SCC 103. It was held that the respondent had overstepped its jurisdiction in opining that the petitioner was not entitled to any pension under the Pension Rules of the bank. The respondent has failed to appreciate that it was the petitioner’s specific case that he had voluntarily resigned from service with effect from May 1, 2004, but was thereafter malafidely removed from service on November 24, 2004. Additionally, despite being terminated, he would still be eligible for a pension because he served for more than 20 years. The respondent could not have simply rejected the petitioner’s position on the basis of a prima facie case without giving him the chance to present evidence before the learned tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, being wholly unsustainable, was accordingly set aside. The matter was returned to the respondent, who will immediately refer the petitioner’s disputes to the appropriate industrial adjudicator so that a decision can be made without further delay.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3MNrAzI

-Report by Harshit Yadav

In this case, four individuals were accused of various offences related to a fraudulent loan obtained by a company called M/s NaftoGaz India Pvt. Ltd. from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The accused individuals had applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Supreme Court heard the appeals challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail and made its decision based on various factors. The main point being made by the Hon’ble supreme court is that there were certain factors that favoured the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused individuals, despite the serious nature of the allegations against them.

FACTS:

The case involves an FIR registered by Corporation Bank alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, namely Shri Mahdoom Bava, Shri Deepak Gupta, Shri Akash Gupta, and Shri Yatish Sharma have filed appeals challenging the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting their applications for anticipatory bail. The accusations involve the alleged creation of a fraudulent account by M/s NaftoGaz India Pvt. Ltd., which secured certain credit facilities from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The prosecution alleges that the Company connived and conspired with advocates and valuers hired by the consortium of banks, and therefore the promoters/directors of the Company, the guarantors as well as those involved in the sanction of the loan were guilty of the offences complained. The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused based on three factors: (i) CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the accused during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report), (ii) CBI only required the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial, and (iii) all transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-13.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the accused persons are entitled to anticipatory bail in the light of serious allegations levelled against them in the FIR filed by the Corporation Bank, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Whether the custodial interrogation of the appellants is required, given that the CBI did not require their custodial interrogation during the investigation period, and whether the custody of the appellants is necessary at this stage.
3. Whether the presence of the accused is required before the trial court for trial or not, and whether opposing the anticipatory bail request at this stage is justified in light of the CBI’s stand that only the presence of the accused before the Trial Court is required.
4. Whether the transactions in question took place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, and whether the accused should be granted anticipatory bail in the absence of any evidence of their involvement in the alleged fraud.

CONTENTIONS:

The appellants, in this case, have challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which rejected their application for anticipatory bail. The appellants have argued that they are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious allegations levelled against them in the FIR filed by the Corporation Bank. They have contended that the CBI did not require their custodial interrogation during the investigation period, and therefore, their custody is not necessary at this stage. The appellants have also argued that the CBI only required their presence before the trial court for trial, and opposing their anticipatory bail request at this stage is not justified.

On the other hand, the respondents have opposed the appellants’ request for anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations against them are serious in nature, and their custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the truth. The respondents have argued that the appellants cannot be granted anticipatory bail merely because the CBI did not require their custody during the investigation period. They have also contended that the presence of the accused before the trial court is not enough, and their custody is necessary to ensure that they do not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, several accused individuals have appealed against the rejection of their applications for anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The First Information Report in the case was registered on 29.06.2019 at the instance of the Corporation Bank, for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations involved a company securing credit facilities from a consortium of banks and committing fraud, with the accused including the company’s promoters/directors, guarantors, and those involved in sanctioning the loan. The CBI completed its investigation and filed a final report on 31.12.2021, with the Special Court issuing a summons for the appearance of the accused on 07.03.2022. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Special Court and confirmed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court found that the CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the investigation period and that the CBI only wanted the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial, which may not be proper grounds to oppose anticipatory bail at this stage. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3yX4kad