{"id":137854,"date":"2000-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000"},"modified":"2019-01-11T20:05:49","modified_gmt":"2019-01-11T14:35:49","slug":"p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: S.S.Ahmad, G.B.Pattanaik<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.  SARATHY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE BANK OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.S.Ahmad, G.B.Pattanaik\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      S.SAGHIR\tAHMAD, J.  The appellant was appointed as  a
\nClerk\tin  the\t State\tBank  of  India\t (for  short,\t`the
\nrespondent’) in 1962.  In July, 1977, he was promoted to the
\npost of Branch Manager but on 8th of September, 1980, he was
\nplaced\tunder  suspension.   On\t 31st\tof  July,  1981,   a
\nchargesheet  was  issued  to  him which was  followed  by  a
\nregular\t departmental proceedings and ultimately on 11th  of
\nJanuary, 1983, the appellant was removed from service.\tThis
\norder  was  challenged by the appellant in an  appeal  filed
\nbefore the Local Board of the Bank on 21st of February, 1983
\nbut  by\t order\tdated  18th of May,  1983,  the\t appeal\t was
\ndismissed.  The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal under
\nSection\t 41(2)\tof the Tamil Nadu Shops\t and  Establishments
\nAct, 1947 (for short, `the Act’) on 21st of July, 1983.\t The
\nappeal\twas  filed  with the Deputy Commissioner  of  Labour
\n(Appeals),  Madras.   This  appeal was dismissed on  1st  of
\nSeptember,  1987 on the ground that the provisions of  Tamil
\nNadu  Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 were not applicable
\nto  the nationalised Banks as held by the Madras High  Court
\nin  Management\tof Bank of India vs.  C.V.  Raman, 1984\t (2)
\nLab.L.J.   34.\t This judgment was upheld by this  Court  on
\n21st  of  April, 1988 and is since reported in (1988) 3\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
105.   It was because of this decision that the\t appellant’s
\nS.L.P.(C)  No.\t 14963 of 1987 against the order of  1st  of
\nSeptember,  1988  by  which the appeal was rejected  by\t the
\nDeputy\tCommissioner of Labour (Appeals) was dismissed.\t  It
\nwas at this stage that the appellant instituted regular suit
\nNo.   11099\/88\tin  the\t City  Civil  Court,  Madras  for  a
\ndeclaration  that the removal of the appellant was  illegal,
\nultra  vires  and  invalid.   He prayed\t for  a\t decree\t for
\nreinstatement  with  consequential benefits.  This suit\t was
\ndismissed  by the trial court by its judgment dated 20th  of
\nApril, 1994.  The trial court further held that the suit was
\nnot  within limitation.\t The first appeal filed, thereafter,
\nby  the\t appellant was allowed on 7th of March, 1995 by\t the
\nVIII Addl.  Judge, Madras with the finding that the suit was
\nnot  barred  by limitation and that the order  of  dismissal
\npassed\tagainst\t the  appellant was  bad.   The\t respondent,
\nthereafter,  filed a second appeal which was allowed by\t the
\nMadras\tHigh  Court on 9th of August, 1996 with the  finding
\nthat  the suit was instituted in the Civil Court beyond\t the
\nperiod\tof  limitation prescribed under the Limitation\tAct.
\nThe  High Court did not go into the merits of the case.\t  It
\nis  in these circumstances that the present appeal has\tbeen
\nfiled.\t The only question which falls for our consideration
\nin  this  appeal  is  whether the  suit\t instituted  by\t the
\nappellant  in  the  City  Civil Court,\tMadras\ton  28th  of
\nSeptember,  1988  was within time.  This suit was filed\t for
\nthe  declaration that the order dated 11th of January, 1983,
\nby  which he was removed from service, was bad in law.\t The
\nnormal period of limitation within which the suit could have
\nbeen filed is three years under Article 58 of the Limitation
\nAct,  1963.   There is another Article, namely, Article\t 113
\nwhich  is  a  residuary Article which provides a  period  of
\nlimitation  of\tthree years for filing a suit for  which  no
\nperiod\tof  limitation is provided elsewhere.  In  order  to
\nbring  a suit within the period of limitation, the appellant
\nclaimed\t benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on\t the
\nground\tthat  he  had represented to the  Local\t Board\tand,
\nthereafter, filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil
\nNadu  Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and was, therefore,
\nprosecuting   “civil  proceedings”  in\ta  court  with\t due
\ndiligence.   It\t is  claimed that the entire  period  during
\nwhich  those proceedings were pending has to be excluded and
\nif  this  is done, the suit will be well within\t limitation.
\nLearned\t counsel  for the respondent has, on  the  contrary,
\ncontended  that the benefit of Section 14 can be given\tonly
\nif the proceedings were “civil proceedings” and were pending
\nin  a  court.  It is contended that the Appellate  Authority
\nunder\tSection\t  41(2)\t of  the   Tamil  Nadu\t Shops\t and
\nEstablishments\tAct, 1947 is not a court and, therefore, the
\nbenefit\t under Section 14 could not be legally given to\t the
\nappellant whose suit had been rightly held to be beyond time
\nby the trial court as also by the High Court.  Section 41 of
\nthe  Act provides as under:- “41.  Notice of dismissal.–(1)
\nNo  employer  shall dispense with the services of  a  person
\nemployed  continuously\tfor  a period of not less  than\t six
\nmonths,\t except\t for a reasonable cause and  without  giving
\nsuch  person at least one month’s notice or wages in lieu of
\nsuch notice, provided however, that such notice shall not be
\nnecessary  where  the services of such person are  dispensed
\nwith  on  a charge of misconduct supported  by\tsatisfactory
\nevidence  recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose.\t (2)
\nThe  person  employed shall have a right to appeal  to\tsuch
\nauthority  and within such time as may be prescribed  either
\non  the\t ground\t that  there was  no  reasonable  cause\t for
\ndispensing  with  his services or on the ground that he\t had
\nnot  been guilty of misconduct as held by the employer.\t (3)
\nThe  decision of the appellate authority shall be final\t and
\nbinding\t on  both the employer and the person  employed.”  A
\nperusal\t of the above provision will show that when a person
\nis  dismissed from service, he has a right of appeal to such
\nAuthority  and\twithin such time as is prescribed under\t the
\nAct.   Rule  9\tand  9-A  of   the  Tamil  Nadu\t Shops\t and
\nEstablishment  Rules, 1948 are quoted below to indicate\t the
\nmanner in which the appeal has to be heard and the powers of
\nthe  Appellate\tAuthority  which are exercisable by  him  in
\ndisposing  of  the  appeal  :- “9.   Appeals  under  section
\n41(1)–(1)  The\t Deputy\t Commissioner  of  Labour  in  their
\nrespective  areas  assinged to them by the  Commissioner  of
\nLabour\tshall be the authorities for the purposes of hearing
\nappeals\t under sub-section (2) of section 41 of the said Act
\n:  Provided that the Commissioner of Labour may, by order in
\nwriting, on the representation made by either of the parties
\nin this behalf or on his own accord, withdraw any case under
\nthis  Act, pending before an authority and transfer the same
\nto  another authority for disposal.  Such authority to\twhom
\nthe  case  is  so transferred may, subject  to\tthe  special
\ndirection in the order of transfer proceed either de-novo or
\nfrom  the  stage  at which it was so transferred.   (2)\t Any
\nappeal\tunder  sub-section  (2)\t of   section  41  shall  be
\npreferred by the person employed within thirty days from the
\ndate  of  service of the order terminating the service\twith
\nthe employer, such service to be deemed effective if carried
\nout  either  personally\t or if that be not  practicable,  by
\nprepaid\t registered post to the last known address when\t the
\ndate of such service shall be deemed to be the date when the
\nletter\twould  arrive in ordinary course of post.   Provided
\nthat  an  appeal  may be admitted after the said  period  of
\nthirty\tdays  if  the\tappellant  satisfies  the  appellate
\nauthority  that\t he had sufficient cause for not  preferring
\nthe  appeal  within  that period.  (3) The procedure  to  be
\nfollowed  by the appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner of
\nLabour),  when\thearing\t appeals   preferred  to  him  under
\nsub-section  (2)  of section 41 shall be summary.  He  shall
\nrecord briefly the evidence adduced before him and then pass
\norders\tgiving\this  reasons therefor.\tThe  result  of\t the
\nappeal\tshall  be  communicated to the parties\tas  soon  as
\npossible.   Copies of the orders shall also be furnished  to
\nthe  parties,  if  required by them.   9-A.   Re-hearing  of
\nappeals.–(1)  In any appeal preferred under the Act, if the
\nemployer  or  his  representative  fails to  appear  on\t the
\nspecified  date, the appellate authority may proceed to hear
\nand  determine\tthe  appeal  ex-parte.\t(2)  In\t any  appeal
\npreferred under the Act, if the appellant fails to appear on
\nthe  specified date, the appellate authority may dismiss the
\nappeal.\t (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules
\n(1) and (2), an order passed under either of those sub-rules
\nmay  be set aside and the appeal reheard on good cause being
\nshown within one month of the date of the said order, notice
\nbeing  serviced on the opposite party of the date fixed\t for
\nsuch  rehearing.”  It is not disputed that the appeal  filed
\nbefore\tthe Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals),  Madras
\nwas  within time.  Deputy Commissioner of Labour  (Appeals),
\nMadras,\t which is the Authority constituted under the  Tamil
\nNadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction
\nto  adjudicate\tupon  an order by which the services  of  an
\nemployee  are terminated.  He has the jurisdiction to decide
\nwhether\t the order of dismissal, passed by the employer, was
\nvalid or it was passed in violation of any statutory rule or
\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice.  Under Section\t 41(3),\t the
\norder  passed  by him is binding on the employer as also  on
\nthe  employee.\t Thus,\tthe Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labour
\n(Appeals)  may not be a “civil court” within the meaning  of
\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure but it is definitely a “court”.
\nThis  appeal was dismissed on 1st of September, 1987 on\t the
\nground\tthat  the  provisions  of   Tamil  Nadu\t Shops\t and
\nEstablishments Act, 1947 were not applicable to Nationalised
\nBanks as held by the Madras High Court in the judgment since
\nreported  in  1984  (2)\t Lab.L.J.  34.\t This  judgment\t was
\nrendered during the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy
\nCommissioner  of Labour (Appeals), Madras.  Sub-section\t (1)
\nof  Section 14, Limitation Act, provides as under:- “(1)  In
\ncomputing  the\tperiod of limitation for any suit  the\ttime
\nduring\twhich  the plaintiff has been prosecuting  with\t due
\ndiligence  another  civil proceeding, whether in a Court  of
\nfirst  instance\t or  of\t appeal or  revisiion,\tagainst\t the
\ndefendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to
\nthe  same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in
\na Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of
\na  like\t nature,  is  unable to entertain it.”\tIt  will  be
\nnoticed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not speak
\nof  a “civil court” but speaks only of a “court”.  It is not
\nnecessary that the court spoken of in Section 14 should be a
\n“civil\tcourt”.\t  Any  Authority  or  Tribunal\thaving\t the
\ntrappings  of a court would be a “court” within the  meaning
\nof  this  Article.  In Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha  vs.\t The
\nSitamarhi  Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.  and<\/a> another,\t AIR
\n1967  SC  1494, this Court, while considering  the  question
\nunder  the  Contempt of Courts Act, held that the  Registrar
\nunder  the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act was a
\ncourt.\t It  was held that the Registrar had not merely\t the
\ntrappings  of a court but in many respects he was given\t the
\nsame  powers as was given to an ordinary Civil Court by\t the
\nCode  of Civil Procedure including the powers to summon\t and
\nexamine\t witnesses on oath, the power to order inspection of
\ndocuments  and\tto hear the parties.  The Court referred  to
\nthe  earlier decisions in Bharat Bank Limited vs.  Employees
\nof  Bharat  Bank  Ltd.,<\/a>\t 1950 SCR 459 =\t AIR  1950  SC\t188;
\nMaqbool\t Hussain  vs.  State of Bombay,<\/a> 1953 SCR 730  =\t AIR
\n1953 SC 325 and Brajnandan Sinha vs.  Jyoti Narain,<\/a> 1955 (2)
\nSCR  955 = AIR 1956 SC 66.  The Court approved the rule laid
\ndown  in these cases that in order to constitute a court  in
\nthe strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that
\nthe  court  should  have,  apart from  having  some  of\t the
\ntrappings  of a judicial tribunal, power to give a  decision
\nor   a\t definitive   judgment\t which\thas   FINALITY\t and
\nAUTHORITATIVENESS  which  are  the   essential\ttests  of  a
\njudicial pronouncement.\t In Pritam Kaur vs.  Sher Singh, AIR<\/a>
\n1983  Punjab  and  Haryana 363, the proceedings\t before\t the
\nCollector  under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act (2
\nof  1913)  were held to be civil proceedings.  It  was\theld
\nthat  the  “court”,  contemplated under Section\t 14  of\t the
\nLimitation  Act, does not necessarily mean the “civil court”
\nunder the Code of Civil Procedure.  It was further held that
\nany  Tribunal or Authority, deciding the rights of  parties,
\nwill  be treated to be a “court”.  Consequently, benefit  of
\nSection\t 14 of the Limitation Act was allowed in that  case.
\nThis  decision\twas  followed by the Himachal  Pradesh\tHigh
\nCourt  in Shri Bansi Ram and others.  vs.  Shri Khazana, AIR
\n1993  Himachal Pradesh 20.  Applying the above principles in
\nthe  instant  case,  we are of the opinion that\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner  of  Labour (Appeals), which was  an  Authority
\nconstituted  under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and
\nEstablishments\tAct, 1947 to hear and decide appeals, was  a
\n“court”\t within the meaning of Section 14 of the  Limitation
\nAct  and  the  proceedings  pending before  him\t were  civil
\nproceedings.   It  is not disputed that the appellant  could
\nfile an appeal before the Local Board of the Bank, which was
\npurely\ta departmental appeal.\tIn this view of the  matter,
\nthe  entire  period of time from the date of institution  of
\nthe  departmental appeal as also the period from the date of
\ninstitution  of\t the appeal under Section 41(2)\t before\t the
\nDeputy\t Commissioner  of  Labour   (Appeals)  till  it\t was
\ndismissed will, therefore, have to be excluded for computing
\nthe  period  of limitation for filing the suit in  question.
\nIf  the\t entire\t period\t is excluded, the suit,\t it  is\t not
\ndisputed,  would  be within time.  It was for these  reasons
\nthat  we  have allowed this appeal by our short order  dated
\n28th  of July, 1998 for which the reasons are recorded by us
\nin detail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000 Bench: S.S.Ahmad, G.B.Pattanaik PETITIONER: P. SARATHY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/05\/2000 BENCH: S.S.Ahmad, G.B.Pattanaik JUDGMENT: S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India (for short, `the respondent’) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137854","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-11T14:35:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-11T14:35:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2247,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000\",\"name\":\"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-11T14:35:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-11T14:35:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-11T14:35:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000"},"wordCount":2247,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000","name":"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-11T14:35:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sarathy-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137854","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137854"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137854\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}