$~1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 15^th February, 2022

+

C.R.P. 1/2019 & CM APPL. 272/2019

THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pallav Saxena, Mr. Syed Arsalan,

Mr. Prateek Khaitan, Mr. Chatanya

Sharma, Mr. Shitij Chakravarty and

Mr. Sikander Hyatt Khan, Advocates.

versus

AVTAR KRISHAN BHAT

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anil Kumar Chandel & Ms.

Preeti

Gupta,

Advocates.

(M:9910102835)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present revision petition challenges the impugned order dated 9^th

August 2018 in CS No. 142/2018 titled Avtar Krishan Bhat v. The Jammu &

Kashmir Bank ltd. passed by the ld. ADJ-02 (North-West) Rohini Courts, Delhi

(hereinafter “Trial Court”). Vide the said order, the application moved by the

Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Bank”) under Order VII Rule 11

CPC has been dismissed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the suit has proceeded,

issues have been framed in the matter and the Trial Court has proceeded with the

recording of evidence.

3.

The background of the case is that the Respondent/Plaintiff- Mr. Avtar

Krishan Bhat (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was employed as a Probationary Officer

with the Defendant Bank in the year 1989 and he was thereafter, promoted from

time to time. Finally, he was posted as Branch Manager in Ghaziabad branch in

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000593

June 2013. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he was fulfilling his duties honestly

and diligently. However, vide the suspension order bearing no. CHQ/DD/2014-

224 dated 17th November 2014 the Plaintiff was placed under suspension. Later,

he was terminated vide termination letter dated 12th February 2015. According to

the Defendant Bank, the termination was issued on the basis of Rule 262 of the

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Officers Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter

“Rules”).

4.

The case of the Plaintiff is that he had worked with diligence and

honesty for a period of 26 years with the Defendant Bank. He has given

various reasons to argue that the termination done by the Defendant Bank

was mala fide. As per the plaint, the Plaintiff claims that even if the

termination was under Rule 262 of the Rules, he was entitled to get

retirement benefits on the basis of service rendered by him. The Plaintiff is

stated to have made repeated representations to the Defendant Bank to

review the termination order which did not bear any fruit. Accordingly, he

filed the present suit seeking declaration and various other monetary reliefs.

5.

The stand taken by the Defendant Bank before the Trial Court was

that the suit itself was not maintainable. According to the Defendant Bank,

the Plaintiff’s suit was nothing but enforcement of contract of personal

service, which was not specifically enforceable in view of section 14(1)(b)

and 41 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (hereinafter “SRA”). The Defendant

Bank, accordingly, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the

Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint. Vide a short order, the Trial Court

dismissed the said application in the following terms-

“Application filed on behalf of the defendant u/o 7

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000593

the same without seeking its reply.”

6.

Mr. Saxena, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant Bank, submits

that the suit is for enforcement of a contract of service. The Plaintiff was

guilty of discounting more than 200 fake and fictitious Letters of Credit

(LCs) leading to loss of more than Rs.32 crores to the Defendant Bank.

Accordingly, the Bank had to take extreme steps of terminating him from

service. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Jitendra Nath Biswas v. Empire of India and Ceylon Tea Co. and Ors.,

1989 3 SCC