Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
A. G. D. Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
The present appeal by the State Bank of India (for short "the Bank"), calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 20.10.2010 in Writ Appeal No. 8085 of 2003. By the said judgment, the Division Bench had dismissed the Appeal of the Bank and confirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2003. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition No. 29547 of 1997 filed by the respondent and quashed the order passed by the Appointing Authority and granted consequential benefits to the respondent. The Appointing Authority had, by its order of 31.01.1995, imposed a punishment of "reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I" as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, has treated the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only.
2. Being aggrieved, the Bank has filed the present Appeal. Shri Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel for the Bank, contends that the courts below have transgressed the limits of Judicial Re
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided information. There are references to judicial treatment, but no direct mention of overruling or reversal. Therefore, no cases are definitively categorized as bad law from the given data.
1.
Several references, such as in Karabi Patowary Barman, Wife Of Sri Mrinal Barman vs State Of Assam - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1801, mention reliance on earlier judgments like State Bank of India v. AGD Reddy, suggesting these cases are considered authoritative and are followed in subsequent rulings.
The repeated citations of Union of India v. Mohd. A.G.D.Reddy (e.g., in BINDU JOY vs DESTINATION MANAGEMENT COUNCIL - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49267 and Bindu Joy, D/o.George.M.P. vs Destination Management Council Represented By Its Chief Executive Officer - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2607) imply these are well-established rulings that continue to be cited and upheld.
2.
Cases like Disciplinary Authority Cum Regional Manager VS Nikunja Bihari Patnaik - 1996 3 Supreme 710, Orissa Mining Corporation VS Ananda Chandra Prusty - 1996 8 Supreme 190, and Karabi Patowary Barman, Wife Of Sri Mrinal Barman vs State Of Assam - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1801 discuss fundamental principles such as acting within authority, burden of proof, and limited judicial review, indicating these principles are reaffirmed and consistently applied.
The case JOGEN DAS S/O LATE KHATARAM DAS VS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 829 references the importance of discipline among bank officers, indicating continued emphasis on discipline as a legal principle.
3.
The list includes multiple references to judgments that seem to serve as legal precedents, such as State of Andhra Pradesh v. S., State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Gunayuthan, and others, which are cited to support legal arguments.
4.
Some entries, such as Keshav Dev VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1613, mention that a judgment was referred or cited, but do not specify whether the treatment was supportive, overruled, or criticized.
References like Tusharbhai A Shah VS Gujarat Housing Board - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 2219 and Ranjitsinh Natvarsinh Dabhi VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 2221 mention propositions laid down or judgments cited but do not clarify whether these propositions were upheld or questioned in subsequent cases.
Cases such as Keshav Dev VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1613, Tusharbhai A Shah VS Gujarat Housing Board - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 2219, Ranjitsinh Natvarsinh Dabhi VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 2221, and others are cited with references to judgments or propositions but lack explicit information on their subsequent judicial treatment, making it unclear whether they are considered good law or have been questioned or overruled.
The case Ram Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 8 Supreme 132 references multiple judgments but does not specify whether these have been overruled or reaffirmed, leaving its treatment ambiguous.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
