Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The case Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (Supreme Court, 2025) is frequently referenced in subsequent judgments, indicating its significance in legal jurisprudence ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs KISHORE KARKERA AND ANR - Bombay"]. The Supreme Court's decision in this case has been described as having the imprimatur of approval and is considered a leading authority on the issues involved ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs KISHORE KARKERA AND ANR - Bombay"].
Several judgments explicitly mention that the principles laid down in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain have been followed or relied upon in later cases, including judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts. For example, the judgment in 2013 (TN MAC 781) notes that the Prabha Jain decision was followed by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases ["THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs SANTHY - Madras"].
The Prabha Jain case is cited as a precedent for issues related to the legal interpretation of banking and contractual obligations, especially concerning bank guarantees and related disputes ["Inox Green Energy Services Ltd & Ors.VersusCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. - Allahabad"]. Courts have acknowledged the case's authority in guiding the law on these matters.
It is evident from multiple references that the Prabha Jain judgment has been consistently respected and followed in later judicial decisions, including those dealing with bank guarantees, contractual disputes, and procedural issues ["UCO BANK THROUGH MANAGER Vs. VIKAS MITTAL S/O SHRI UMESH MITTAL - Rajasthan"], ["THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs SANTHY - Madras"].
The decision in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025) has been followed in subsequent judgments, as evidenced by multiple references across High Courts and Supreme Court decisions. Courts have relied on its principles to affirm legal positions, demonstrating its authoritative status.
The case's influence is seen in various contexts, including bank guarantee invocation, contractual disputes, and procedural rulings, confirming that the judgment continues to serve as a binding precedent.
References:- ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs KISHORE KARKERA AND ANR - Bombay"]- ["THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs SANTHY - Madras"]- ["Inox Green Energy Services Ltd & Ors.VersusCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. - Allahabad"]- ["UCO BANK THROUGH MANAGER Vs. VIKAS MITTAL S/O SHRI UMESH MITTAL - Rajasthan"]
In the dynamic landscape of Indian procedural law, Supreme Court judgments often set binding precedents that shape future litigation. One such pivotal decision is Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025 INSC 95). But a common query among legal practitioners and litigants arises: central bank of India vs Prabha Jain was followed in later judgements or not? This blog post delves into this question, examining the case's core principles, its affirmation in subsequent rulings, and broader implications, drawing from key judicial sources. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain case (2025 INSC 95) addressed critical aspects of civil procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly Order VII Rule 11, which governs the rejection of plaints. The Supreme Court held that even if some reliefs are barred, the entire plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC if other reliefs surviveSyed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892. This principle prevents partial rejection of plaints when maintainable reliefs exist, promoting judicial efficiency and fairness.
Key holdings include:- Partial rejection impermissible: Courts cannot piecemeal dismiss plaints; if any relief survives, the suit proceeds Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892.- Limited judicial review: Courts must exercise restraint, intervening only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or natural justice violations Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892.- Sparingly exercised power: Order VII Rule 11 applies cautiously, especially in complex banking matters involving multiple reliefs.
This ruling is particularly relevant in disputes under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, where banks seek to reject plaints challenging enforcement actions.
Yes, the Prabha Jain judgment was explicitly followed and reaffirmed in later decisions, underscoring its precedential value. A prime example is Central Bank of India v. Smt. Prabha Jain and Others (2025 SCC Online SC 121), which directly cited and relied upon it Dina Nath (D) by Lrs VS Subhash Chand Saini - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1069.
The later judgment quoted: Even if we would have been persuaded to take the view that the third relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC...Dina Nath (D) by Lrs VS Subhash Chand Saini - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1069. This explicit reference demonstrates doctrinal continuity, reinforcing that plaints survive partial bars.
These rulings collectively affirm:- No partial rejection doctrine when other reliefs are viable Dina Nath (D) by Lrs VS Subhash Chand Saini - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1069Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892.- Judicial restraint in administrative and procedural reviews Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892.- Binding precedent in procedural law, especially plaint challenges in banking litigation Dina Nath (D) by Lrs VS Subhash Chand Saini - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1069.
The principles from Prabha Jain align with a line of Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing procedural restraint. For instance, in service law disputes involving Central Bank of India, courts have echoed similar themes of reasoned orders and limited interference. In one case, promotion denial due to vigilance clearance was deemed arbitrary if no proceedings were pending at selection time, highlighting the need for jurisdictional propriety Radha Raman Tiwari S/o Late Balmukund Tiwari VS Bank Of Baroda - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 1857. Here, an employee's promotion cannot be denied based on vigilance clearance if no departmental proceedings were pending at the time of selectionRadha Raman Tiwari S/o Late Balmukund Tiwari VS Bank Of Baroda - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 1857.
Similarly, disciplinary actions require proof beyond mere recovery, with orders set aside if non-speaking Anil Kumar Jha VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 644. The court noted: Proof of demand of illegal gratification is a necessary pre-requisite... Mere recovery will not be sufficientAnil Kumar Jha VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 644. These echo Prabha Jain's call for reasoned, restrained judicial intervention Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892.
Other Central Bank-related matters, such as unauthorized absence dismissals, stress adherence to natural justice, mirroring the procedural safeguards in plaint rejection cases Mohammad Shafiq Bhat VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 29. In Pawan Dev Kotwal v. Smt. Prabha Jain, procedural fairness was central CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SMT. PRABHA JAIN. While not identical, these cases illustrate how Prabha Jain's restraint principle permeates banking and service litigation.
In banking guarantee invocations, courts caution against interference, following precedents like Ansal Engg. Projects Ltd.Inox Green Energy Services Ltd & Ors. vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. - 2023 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 103, reinforcing limited review scopes akin to Prabha JainSyed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892.
While widely followed, Prabha Jain applies primarily to procedural contexts, not merits evaluation. Courts intervene only on exceptional grounds like patent illegality Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892. In SARFAESI matters, Section 17(3) bars may apply to specific reliefs, but not the entire plaint Dina Nath (D) by Lrs VS Subhash Chand Saini - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1069.
For practitioners:- Cite strategically: Use Prabha Jain to oppose blanket plaint rejections under Order VII Rule 11.- Assess reliefs: Analyze if any claim survives to keep the suit alive.- Emphasize restraint: Argue for non-interference absent clear errors.
Litigants in banking disputes, especially against Central Bank of India, benefit from this continuity, as seen in NOC/resignation issues Manoj Kumar Pandey vs The State Bank Of India and Ors or vehicle release applications MAGMA LEASING LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 473,
The Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025 INSC 95) judgment has been robustly followed, notably in the 2025 SCC Online SC 121 ruling, cementing its status as binding precedent on plaint rejection and judicial restraint Dina Nath (D) by Lrs VS Subhash Chand Saini - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1069Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892. This ensures procedural fairness in complex civil suits, particularly banking and SARFAESI cases.
Key takeaways:- Plaints survive if any relief is maintainable—no partial rejections.- Judicial review is limited; restraint is paramount.- Practitioners should leverage these precedents for robust arguments.
As Indian jurisprudence evolves, Prabha Jain remains a cornerstone. Stay informed on such developments to navigate litigation effectively. This analysis is for informational purposes; seek professional advice tailored to your situation.
References:1. Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin Shaik Moinuddin Mohd.Moinuddin Mohd. Karim - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10892: Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025 INSC 95).2. Dina Nath (D) by Lrs VS Subhash Chand Saini - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1069: Central Bank of India v. Smt. Prabha Jain and Others (2025 SCC Online SC 121).3. Additional contexts: Radha Raman Tiwari S/o Late Balmukund Tiwari VS Bank Of Baroda - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 1857, Anil Kumar Jha VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 644, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SMT. PRABHA JAIN, etc.
#PrabhaJainCase, #CPCOrder7Rule11, #SupremeCourtRulings
Khandeparkar forcefully submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India and Anr Vs Prabha Jain and Ors, (2025) 4 SCC 38. ... Since the judgment of this court in the case of Bank of Baroda (supra), has the imprimatur of approval by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Central Bank of India and Anr. V/s. Prabha Jain and Ors. ... In the case of #HL_ST....
Bank of India. ... The petitioner resigned from the service of Central Bank of India on 18.11.2010 but he did not get the NOC from the Central Bank of India ... Bank of India on 11.12.2009 and joined the Central Bank Bank of India without being relieved from Central Bank of In....
The learned DRs therefore, pleaded that it is the date of clearance of cheque and not the date of presentation of the cheque before the bank which is relevant for the purpose of payment of duty. 12. Shri Sameer Jain, ld. ... Ltd., followed the judgements. The Counsel also submits that so also is the result in the case of Sanghi Polyesters Ltd. reported in 2000 (37) RLT 97 (GOI)=2001(134) ELT 344. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the Revenue may be rejected. ... Since Central#HL_E....
Projects Ltd which, as noted hereinabove, followed the long line of judgements of the Supreme Court wherein Courts were cautioned to refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee. ... National Construction Co., (1996) 1 SCC 735; United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, (1981) 2 SCC 766; and Centax (India) Ltd. v. ... (Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 754; Union of I....
Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 720, the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. CCL Products (India) Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 669, and Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 13 SCC 574, has followed Ansal Engg. ... Projects Ltd which, as noted hereinabove, followed the long line of judgements of the Supreme Court wherein Courts were cautioned to refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee. ... Union of India#HL_END....
Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 720 , the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. CCL Products (India) Ltd. , (2019) 20 SCC 669, and Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd. , (2020) 13 SCC 574, has followed Ansal Engg. ... Projects Ltd which, as noted hereinabove, followed the long line of judgements of the Supreme Court wherein Courts were cautioned to refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee. ... Fenner #H....
The above Judgement has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a later Judgement reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 781 (SC) - New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. ... New India Assurance Co. ... The learned counsel would rely upon the following Judgements: "1. 2004 (2) TN MAC 144 (SC) - Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., another. ... Therefore, in the light of the above Judgements the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the Insurance Company is liable....
New India Assurance Co. ... The above Judgement has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a later Judgement reported in 4. ... That apart, the deceased being the owner of the vehicle was not a third party and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to India Assurance Co. Ltd., another.
The petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Reliance has been placed on the judgements of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. ... Nand Prabha Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. ... Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. ... Central Bureau of Investigating and another (2022) 10 SCC 51 and co- ordinate D....
PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 1876/2016 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR Appellant(s) VERSUS SMT. ... PRABHA JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 1877/2016 C.A. No. 1892/2016 C.A. No. 1893/2016 C.A. ... Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. ... KOTWAL) Registrar Digitally signed by JYOTI G....
14. While referring to the Office Memorandums issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India dated 02.11.2012 and 14.09.1992, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Singh that as per the said Office Memorandums, the promotion cannot be denied to the appellant for want of vigilance clearance since as on the date, when the name of the appellant was placed in the waiting list, there was no departmental inquiry pending against him. He has submitted that as per the settled legal precedent, only when the chargesheet is issued, it can be said that the departmental proceeding....
This decision was followed in Central Bank of India Limited vs.
This decision was followed in Central Bank of India vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors. 1976 Labour & Industrial Cases 4 (SC) = AIR 1976 SC 98 = 1976 (2) SCR 280 = (1976) 1 SCC 518. Sree Rama Rao. 1964 2 LLJ 150 = AIR 1963 SC 1723 = 1964 (3) SCR 25, in which the question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. Prakash Chand Jain, 1969 2 LLJ 377 (SC) = AIR 1969 SC 983 and Bharat Iron Works vs.
Court also held in Purnya Kala Devi (supra) that registered owner of vehicle should not be held liable if vehicle is not in his control. The aforesaid decision has been followed in Central Bank of India vs.
(xi) Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10 (xiii) State of Bihar Vs. Laxmi Shankar Prasad (2002) 10 SCC 351 (xii) Central Bank of India Vs. Prakash Chand Jain AIR 1969 SC 983. (xiv) State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92
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
