{"id":158679,"date":"1993-06-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-06-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993"},"modified":"2018-09-21T02:28:16","modified_gmt":"2018-09-20T20:58:16","slug":"mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993","title":{"rendered":"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Calcutta High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: (1994) 1 CALLT 40 HC, 1995 (71) FLR 540, (1995) ILLJ 535 Cal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B P Banerjee<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B P Banerjee, A K Chakravarty<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. This appeal is against the order dated August 31, 1992<br \/>\npassed by the Learned Trial Judge in C.O. No. 16228(W) of 1991.<br \/>\nA writ application was filed challenging the order of transfer transferring<br \/>\nthe appellant- petitioner to the North Eastern Zone by the order<br \/>\ndated August 19, 1991 while he was posted at Debipur, Burdwan in the<br \/>\nState of West Bengal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The appellant is a member of Scheduled Caste and<br \/>\njoined the service under UCO Bank as a clerk and subsequently<br \/>\non promotions selected in the post of Officer Grade D now known as<br \/>\nOfficer Scale No. 1; The appellant claims to be the President of<br \/>\nthe Bengal Provincial Depressed Classes League (UCO Bank Unit)<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the &#8220;League&#8221;) and alleged that the<br \/>\nsaid transfer from Calcutta to North Eastern Zone will seriously affect<br \/>\nthe interest of the Scheduled Castes employees of the said Bank. It<br \/>\nwas further alleged that the petitioner made a representation as the<br \/>\nPresident of the said League to the Parliamentary Committee on the<br \/>\nWelfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes whereupon an<br \/>\nenquiry was held into the activities of the said Bank relating to<br \/>\nirregularities in filling up the vacancies which were kept reserved<br \/>\nfor Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 3 Tribes in the service of the<br \/>\nBank. According to the appellant this had caused annoyance to<br \/>\nthe authorities concerned who had passed order of transfer. The<br \/>\nvalidity and\/or illegality of the said order of transfer was challenged<br \/>\nin the writ application, inter alia, on the grounds (a) that there was<br \/>\ndiscrimination in the matter of transfer inasmuch as several<br \/>\nother officers who are allowed to stay 10 years or more in<br \/>\nCalcutta had not been transferred, whereas the appellant was<br \/>\nsingled out for discriminatory treatment, (b) the order of transfer was<br \/>\nmade in violation of the transfer policy of the Bank wherein it is<br \/>\nprovided that &#8220;The placement and movement of persons will have<br \/>\nto be made after due consideration of all aspects and if any<br \/>\nexceptions are required to be made for any justifiable reasons, the<br \/>\nsame has to be done for which reasons are to be recorded. We are keen<br \/>\nthat the transfer policy should lead to growth of the individual and Bank,<br \/>\nand as far as possible, Officers in Scale II and Scale III will be posted in<br \/>\ntheir Home States (i.e. State of domicile). If however, there is excess<br \/>\nof officers in a State they would, as far as possible, be transferred<br \/>\nto the neighbouring States&#8221;, (c); There are two other leaders of<br \/>\nScheduled Castes Union, namely Sri B.C. Poddar and Mr. G.K.<br \/>\nMondal, who were not transferred in view of the protection<br \/>\nguaranteed to the union officials in terms of the guidelines for<br \/>\ntransfer of the officers dated August 1, 1984 and that even though<br \/>\nthe appellant was similarly situated to that of Mr. B.C. Poddar and<br \/>\nMr. G.K. Mondal, such transfer not only amounts to discrimination but<br \/>\nalso amounts to depriving the appellant from performing his trade<br \/>\nunion activities for the welfare of SC\/ST employees of the said Bank<br \/>\nand (d) lastly the appellant was transferred in place of I.N. Mallick,<br \/>\nan officer of the Bank who was to come back from that North Eastern<br \/>\nZone and that for accommodating the said Sri I.N. Mallick, the<br \/>\nappellant was transferred allegedly with the interest of the Bank<br \/>\nwhich was contrary to facts and the same was mala fide. The<br \/>\nLearned Trial Judge on consideration of the matter found that the<br \/>\nappellant could not make out a case of any discrimination or that<br \/>\nthe order was mala fide or suffers from any illegality<br \/>\nnecessitating any interference by this Court and accordingly,<br \/>\ndismissed the writ application.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Advocate appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant, submitted that the order of transfer in the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case amounts to interfering with<br \/>\nthe trade union activities of the appellant who claimed to be the<br \/>\nPresident of the said League and that if the appellant is posted at<br \/>\nNorth Eastern Zone in that event, the appellant would not protect<br \/>\nthe interest of the members of the said union. Secondly, it was<br \/>\nsubmitted that the said order of transfer was based, as a matter<br \/>\nof fact, on a retaliation of lodging a complaint before the Parliamentary<br \/>\nCommittee against the Bank for which the said Committee<br \/>\ncaused an enquiry. Thirdly, it was submitted that the order of trans-<br \/>\nfer could not be made in violation of the transfer policy and\/or<br \/>\nguidelines made in this behalf which are binding upon the Bank.<br \/>\nLastly, it was submitted that several other officers similarly<br \/>\nsituated had not been transferred out of Calcutta even though they are<br \/>\nposted in Calcutta for more than 10 years and whereas the appellant has<br \/>\nbeen singled out from Calcutta Zone to North Eastern Zone which,<br \/>\naccording to the appellant, was ar-bitrary and discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. On behalf of the respondents-Bank it was submitted by the<br \/>\nlearned Advocate that the order of transfer was passed strictly in<br \/>\naccordance with the transfer policy and\/or guidelines laid down<br \/>\nby the Bank in this behalf. It was submitted that prior to the present<br \/>\nposting at Debipur, Burdwan the appellant was posted in<br \/>\nCalcutta for about 10 years and at Debipur he was posted for about 4<br \/>\nyears. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondents-<br \/>\nBank that in the year 1987 the petitioner was sought to be transferred<br \/>\nto Orissa but the said order of transfer was challenged or withdrawn<br \/>\nby the Bank on compassionable ground since the appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nmother was suffering from Cancer and the appellant was posted at<br \/>\nDebipur Branch. On February 6, 1988 in Burdwan which is in close<br \/>\nproximity of his residence for attending to the requirement of his<br \/>\nailing mother and that Sri B.C. Poddar and Sri G.K. Mondal<br \/>\nrepresent majority of the SC\/ST employees and that<br \/>\naccordingly, they were treated as exempted category as contained in<br \/>\nthe guidelines dated August 1, 1984; In the said guidelines dated<br \/>\nAugust 1, 1984 &#8220;Office Bearers of the AIUCEOF, AIUCBOA and<br \/>\nNFUCBU, viz., the President, General Secretary, Organising Secretary,<br \/>\nand Treasurer, during their terms of office &#8220;falls to be exempted<br \/>\nfrom inter-State transfer (7)(c) of the guidelines for the transfer<br \/>\nand placement of officers&#8221; dated August 1, 1984 (and that the<br \/>\nrespondent-Bank does not admit that the appellant was the<br \/>\nPresident of any Trade Union. On the contrary, it was submitted that<br \/>\nthe Association which is allegedly represented by the appellant<br \/>\nwas Bengal Provincial Depressed Classes League (UCO Bank). It was<br \/>\nspecifically alleged that the said League is not a trade union or a union of<br \/>\nthe officers of the said Bank.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. It was submitted that the said League represents a small<br \/>\nfraction of the employees of the said Bank whereas the union or<br \/>\norganisation represented by Sri Poddar and Sri Mondal represents<br \/>\nthe majority of the SC\/ST employees of the said Bank. In this<br \/>\nconnection it was pointed out that for the last few years, the<br \/>\nmanagement has held meeting for discussing regarding the<br \/>\ninterest of the employee in which Sri Poddar and Sri Mondal<br \/>\nattended to represent SC\/ST employees of the said Organisation.<br \/>\nIt was further denied by the respondent Bank that the appellant is<br \/>\nPresident of All India UCO Bank SC\/ST Employees League and that<br \/>\nthe said League had never been invited in recent past since the<br \/>\nsaid League is a minority SC\/ST Association having very few members in<br \/>\nor around Calcutta and that they have no members outside Calcutta<br \/>\nand\/or West Bengal. This facts was sought to be disputed on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Regulation 47 of UCO Bank (Officers&#8217;) Service Regulations,<br \/>\n1979 provides &#8220;Every officer is liable to transfer to any office or<br \/>\nbranch of the Bank or to any place of India&#8221;. The transfer policy on<br \/>\nwhich such reliance was placed also provides that &#8220;his place of<br \/>\nposting before the expiry of three years from the date of his<br \/>\nposting, except in difficult centres, where the stay will not be more<br \/>\nthan two years. Subject to the exigencies of Administration, no officer<br \/>\nwill be retained in the same branch\/office for a period , in excess of 3-5<br \/>\nyears. By difficult centres it is meant such centres as may be<br \/>\ndetermined by the Bank after determining the criteria therefor&#8221;,<br \/>\nand that for North Eastern Zone the period of stay ordinarily is<br \/>\ntwo years and that it is also evident that the appellant has been<br \/>\ntransferred to that Zone in place of I.N. Mallick who is to come back to<br \/>\nthis Zone after completing two years&#8217; period and that<br \/>\naccordingly, it does not appear that only for accommodating I.N.<br \/>\nMallick, appellant has been transferred. It was a gross transfer. Mr.<br \/>\nMallick has been brought from that Zone as he has completed<br \/>\ntwo years&#8217; period of service there. Accordingly, in this court it cannot<br \/>\nbe alleged that there was any irregularity committed by the Bank.<br \/>\nThe transfer is an express condition of service and that transfer is<br \/>\nmade not under any rule having a statutory force. It is well settled<br \/>\nprinciple that unless it could be established that an order of transfer<br \/>\nis in the face of it mala fide and was not in the interest of the ad-<br \/>\nministration and\/ or it is violative of any of the rules of transfer<br \/>\nor the like, the validity of the order of transfer could not be<br \/>\nchallenged on any other grounds. An employer in this respect is re-<br \/>\nquired to act fairly. The guidelines for transfer and placement of<br \/>\nofficers dated August 1, 1984 had been provided in protection of<br \/>\nthe Union allegedly represented by the appellant. It is true that the<br \/>\nunion represented by Mr. Poddar and Mr. Mondal is not also<br \/>\nmentioned in that guidelines for any protection. Of course, it is not<br \/>\nfor us to make any comment about transfer policy. When under the<br \/>\nstatutory rules an officer is transferred in that event merely on<br \/>\nthe ground that an employee happens to be a union leader could<br \/>\nnot be transferred would be contrary to the interest of an organisation.<br \/>\nUnion leader cannot claim any preferential treatment and\/or any im-<br \/>\nmunity from transfer when transfer is a condition of service and in<br \/>\nthis regard a discrimination could not be made between an employee<br \/>\nwho is not a union leader and an employee who is a union leader.<br \/>\nUnder our Constitution an employee has trade union right<br \/>\nsubject to conditions and restrictions. The trade union activities  are not<br \/>\nto be performed during the office hours inasmuch as an employee is<br \/>\npaid by public exchequer for his official duty and not for his trade union<br \/>\nactivities. Trade Union activities are to be performed beyond office hours.<br \/>\nIn the matter of laying down the principles and guidelines for<br \/>\ntransfer the authorities concerned cannot lay down any rule which<br \/>\nis contrary to the statutory rules. In the instant case, the Bank has<br \/>\ndenied and disputed that the appellant happens to be the President UCO<br \/>\nBank SC\/ST Council as alleged or at all. The appellant has completed<br \/>\nabout 14 years of service in or around Calcutta and accordingly,<br \/>\nthe appellant cannot claim any protection against the transfer<br \/>\nfrom one Zone to another. Sri Poddar and Sri Mondal the Principal<br \/>\nOffice Bearers of UCO Bank SC\/ST Employees Council were not<br \/>\ntransferred since they were treated as exempted category and<br \/>\nthat on the basis of the materials placed before us, a case of<br \/>\ndiscrimination could not be made by transferring the appellant<br \/>\nand not transferring the said Mr. Poddar and Sri Mondal. Further<br \/>\nwith regard to several other officers whose names have been disclosed<br \/>\nwere not transferred even though they were in the present Zone for<br \/>\nmore than 10 years, in order to make out a case for discrimination,<br \/>\nthe onus is heavily upon the appellant. The Supreme Court in the case of<br \/>\nKatra Education Society v. State of U.P.  held that<br \/>\n&#8220;a plea of unlawful discrimination cannot be adjudged unless<br \/>\npetition contains full averments of the ground on which equality is<br \/>\nclaimed and the denial of equality is pleaded as not based on rational<br \/>\nrelation to the object sought to be achieved by actions which makes a<br \/>\nclassification&#8221;. On the basis of the pleading it appears that Mr.<br \/>\nPoddar and Mr. Mondal who were Secretary and President<br \/>\nrespectively of UCO Bank SC\/ST Council which represents the<br \/>\nmajority members of the reserved community and that Mr. Poddar<br \/>\nand Mr. Mondal cannot be treated as similarly situated to that of the<br \/>\nappellant-writ petitioner. With regard to other officers mentioned in<br \/>\nthe petition it cannot be said that any discrimination had resulted<br \/>\nin transferring the appellant. The transfer is a policy matter of the<br \/>\nBank and that in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find<br \/>\nany reason to interfere with the order of transfer of the appellant and<br \/>\nwe do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere with the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned trial Judge dated March 31, 1992 and accordingly,<br \/>\nthe appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. The<br \/>\nappellant is given liberty to join the new place of posting within a<br \/>\nperiod of 15 days from today, if not, already joined in accordance<br \/>\nwith the order of transfer and in case the appellant joined in the<br \/>\nnew place of posting in terms of this order in that event, no action<br \/>\nshould be taken against the appellant for not complying with the order<br \/>\nof transfer.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. I agree.\n<\/p>\n<p> Ashok Kumar Chakravarty, J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Calcutta High Court Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993 Equivalent citations: (1994) 1 CALLT 40 HC, 1995 (71) FLR 540, (1995) ILLJ 535 Cal Author: B P Banerjee Bench: B P Banerjee, A K Chakravarty JUDGMENT Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal is against the order dated August 31, 1992 passed [&hellip;]<\/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":[22,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-calcutta-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-20T20:58:16+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\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T20:58:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2291,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Calcutta High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993\",\"name\":\"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T20:58:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-20T20:58:16+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\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993","datePublished":"1993-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T20:58:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993"},"wordCount":2291,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Calcutta High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993","name":"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T20:58:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-das-vs-uco-bank-on-28-june-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahabir Das vs Uco Bank on 28 June, 1993"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/158679","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=158679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}