SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 734

M.M.DUTT, RANGANATH MISRA
T. SHEPHARD – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution and appeals by special leave are against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in writ appeals have a common set of facts as also law for consideration. These matters have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) HINDUSTAN Commercial Bank (hindustan for short), The Bank of Cochin Ltd. (hereafter referred to as cochin Bank) and Lakshmi Commercial Bank ( lakshmi for short) were private banks. Action was initiated under Section 4-5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (act for short) for amalgamation of these three banks with Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and State Bank of India respectively in terms of separate schemes drawn under that provision of the Act. Amalgamation has been made. Pursuant to the schemes 28 employees of Hindustan, 21 employees of Cochin Bank and 76 employees of Lakshmi were excluded from employment and their services were not taken over by the respective transferee banks. Some of these excluded employees of the Cochin Bank went before the Kerala High Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top