Prahlad Rai Khemka Vs. Tara Kumar Sinha, Managing Director, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/655953 |
| Subject | Service |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Nov-29-1988 |
| Case Number | Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 16151 and 21169 of 1988 |
| Judge | M.N. Venkatachaliah and; Ranganath Misra, JJ. |
| Reported in | AIR1989SC567; 1989(1)BLJR1; [1989(58)FLR77]; JT1988(4)SC554; 1989LabIC1013; 1988(2)SCALE1476; (1989)1SCC255; 1988(2)WLN380 |
| Appellant | Prahlad Rai Khemka;state Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur |
| Respondent | Tara Kumar Sinha, Managing Director, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur;prahlad Rai Khemka and ors. |
Excerpt:
.....independent witness -why independent witnesses could not be found was not been explained - no explanation has been furnished as to why the first information report was lodged after 11 hours and why the mandatory provisions of subsection (2) of section 42 of the act had not been complied with order of acquittal passed by high court, held, proper.
indian evidence act, 1872
section 27: [s.b. sinha, dr. mukundakam sharma, h.l. dattu, jj] discovery of fact - held, if by a reason of statements made by an accused some facts have been discovered, the same would be admissible against the person who had made the statement in terms of section 27 of the indian evidence act.....civil appeal and alter the judgment of the high court. confined to its own facts the judgment of the high court has now to be implemented. as counsel for the bank has agreed that given some time the order of the high court would be implemented, we do not propose to take any action on the contempt application. the same is dismissed.4. the bank is directed to implement the judgment of the high court within six weeks from now. the petition filed by the bank for variation of the judgment is also dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs in either of the matters.
Judgment:ORDER
1. The first one is an application for contempt proceedings being taken against the respondent-Bank and the second petition is by the Bank for clarification of the judgment of this Court dated February 9, 1988.
2. Petitioner was an officer of the Bank. He approached the Rajasthan High Court for appropriate fitment in the Bank following the scheme of rationalisation with effect from October 1, 1979 and the High Court gave direction to the Bank by allowing his writ application. The Bank had challenged the order of the High Court in appeal to this Court. By judgment dated February 9, 1988, the appeal was dismissed. As the Bank has not implemented the decision of the Rajasthan High Court as upheld here, the petition for contempt has been filed.
3. The Bank has asked for variation of the order dismissing the appeal on the basis of the judgment delivered by this Court in a connected matter wherein the entire legal position has been examined at length. We do not think in the facts of the present case we should vacate the judgment in the Civil Appeal and alter the judgment of the High Court. Confined to its own facts the judgment of the High Court has now to be implemented. As counsel for the Bank has agreed that given some time the order of the High Court would be implemented, we do not propose to take any action on the contempt application. The same is dismissed.
4. The Bank is directed to implement the judgment of the High Court within six weeks from now. The petition filed by the Bank for variation of the judgment is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in either of the matters.