{"id":199964,"date":"1989-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989"},"modified":"2018-10-02T05:41:12","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T00:11:12","slug":"punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989","title":{"rendered":"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1083, \t\t 1989 SCR (1) 612<\/div>\n
Author: S Rangnathan<\/div>\n
Bench: Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP.K. MITTAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/02\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1083\t\t  1989 SCR  (1) 612\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 175 JT 1989 (1)\t264\n 1989 SCALE  (1)353\n\n\nACT:\n    Labour and Services: Punjab National Bank Service  Regu-\nlation No.. 20(2): Withdrawal of resignation  letter--Effect\nof--Whether  bank  entitled to accept  resignation  from  an\nearlier date.\n    Civil   Services: Resignation  by\temployee--Withdrawal\nPermissibility and effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Clause  (2) of Regulation 20 of the Service\t Regulations\nof the Punjab National Bank lays down that no officer  shall\nresign\tfrom the service of the bank otherwise than  on\t the\nexpiry\tof  three months from the service on the bank  of  a\nnotice\tin writing of such resignation. The proviso  thereto\nempowers  the  competent authority to reduce the  period  of\nthree months or remit the requirement of notice.\n    The respondent, a permanent officer of the bank, made an\napplication on 21st January 1986, purporting to resign\tfrom\nthe  service with effect from 30th June, 1986. He,  however,\nreceived  a letter from the bank on 7th February,  1986\t in-\nforming\t  him that his resignation letter had been  accepted\nby the competent authority with immediate effect by  waiving\nthe condition of notice.\n    He\tthereupon  filed a writ petition in the\t High  Court\nchallenging the validity of the purported acceptance of\t his\nresignation  with effect from 7th February, 1986 and  for  a\ndirection  to  consider him as in service up to\t 30th  June,\n1986.  Thereafter,  on\t15th April, 1986  he  wrote  another\nletter\tto the Bank purporting to withdraw  the\t resignation\nletter dated 21st January, 1986.\n    The\t High Court held that the  petitioner's\t resignation\nletter\twould have become effective only on the\t 30th  June,\n1986,  that under the Regulations there was no\tjurisdiction\nwhatever in the competent authority to determine his service\nearlier\t than  that and that until  the\t resignation  became\neffective on 30th June, 1986 he had a right to withdraw\t the\nsame. Consequently, it quashed the order dated 7th February,\n1986  and  declared that the petitioner continued to  be  in\nservice with the bank.\n613\n    In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the\nappellant that Regulation 20(2) provided for a notice to the\nemployer only in order to protect the employer's  interests,\nthat  its  requirements could, therefore, be waived  by\t the\nemployer  if  it  so desired unilaterally,  that  under\t the\nproviso to clause (2) it was competent for the bank to waive\nany notice at all and to accept the resignation with immedi-\nate  effect or with effect from such other date as the\tbank\nmay consider appropriate.\nDismissing the appeal,\n    HELD: 1. Until the resignation becomes effective on\t the\nterms  of the letter read with Service Regulation 20 of\t the\nPunjab National Bank, it is open to the employee, on general\nprinciples, to withdraw his letter of resignation. [619C]\n    Raj Kumar v. Union of India, [1968] 3 SCR 857; Union  of\nIndia  v.  Gopal Chandra Misra,<\/a> [1978] 3 SCR 12\t and  Balram\nGupta v. Union of India,<\/a> [1987] Suppl. SCC 228.\n    2. Clause (2) of Regulation 20 makes it incumbent on  an\nofficer of the bank, before resigning, to serve a notice  in\nwriting of such proposed resignation. The clause also  makes\nit  clear that the resignation will not be effective  other-\nwise than on the expiry of three months from the service  of\nsuch notice. [616H; 617A]\n    3.\tWhat the proviso to clause (2) contemplates is\tthat\nin  a case where the employee desires that  his\t resignation\nshould be effective even before the expiry of the period  of\nthree months or without notice being given by him, the\tbank\nmay consider such a request and waive the period or require-\nment of notice if it considers it fit to do so. It does\t not\nempower the bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with\neffect\tfrom a date different from the one on which  he\t can\nmake his resignation effective under the terms of the resig-\nnation. In the instant case, the employee had not  requested\nthe  bank  to reduce the period of notice or  to  waive\t the\nrequirement of notice. [617F; 618G]\n    4. There are two ways of interpreting clause (2). One is\nthat  the  resignation of an employee from service  being  a\nvoluntary act on his part he is entitled to choose the\tdate\nwith  effect from which his resignation would  be  effective\nand give a notice to the bank accordingly. The only restric-\ntion is that the proposed date should not be less than three\nmonths\tfrom the date on which the notice is given.  In\t the\ninstant\t case, the letter dated 21st January 1986,  sent  by\nthe employee purporting to\n614\nresign with effect from 30th June, 1986 fully complied\twith\nthe  terms of this clause and so the resignation would\thave\nbecome effective only on that date. The other interpretation\nis  that when an employee gives a notice or resignation,  it\nbecomes\t effective  on the expiry of three months  from\t the\ndate thereof. On this interpretation the respondent's resig-\nnation would have taken effect on or about 21st April,\t1986\neven though he had mentioned a later date. In either view of\nthe  matter,  the respondent's resignation  did\t not  become\neffective till 21st April, 1986 or 30th June, 1986. The bank\ncould  not  have accepted that resignation  on\tany  earlier\ndate.  The letter dated 7th February, 1986  was,  therefore,\nwithout jurisdiction. [617A-B; 618A-B, G-H]\n    The respondent had thus continued to be in service\ttill\nthe 21st April, 1986 or 30th June, 1986. But, by that  time,\nhe  had\t exercised his right to\t withdraw  the\tresignation.\nSince the withdrawal letter was written before the  resigna-\ntion became effective, the resignation stood withdrawn\twith\nthe result that the respondent continued to be in the  serv-\nice of the bank. [619A-B]\n    Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Tara Chand,  [1987]\n2 SCR 425, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2014  of
\n1986.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 24.4.  1986  of\t the
\nDelhi High Court in C.W. No. 477 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Anand Prakash, D. Mehta, Atul Nanda and S.K. Mehta for
\nthe Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.K. Bisaria for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    RANGANATHAN,  J. A very short question as to the  inter-
\npretation  of the service regulations of the  appellant-bank
\ncomes  up  for consideration in this  appeal.  The  relevant
\nservice\t regulation  is\t Regulation No. 20  which  reads  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “20(1) Subject to sub-regulation (3) of  regu-
\n\t      lation 16, the bank may terminate the services
\n\t      of  any  officer by giving him  three  months’
\n\t      notice  in  writing  or by  paying  him  three
\n\t      months’ emoluments in lieu thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      615<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (2)  No officer shall resign from the  service
\n\t      of  the bank otherwise than on the  expiry  of
\n\t      three months from the service on the bank of a
\n\t      notice in writing of such resignation. Provid-
\n\t      ed  further that the competent  authority\t may
\n\t      reduce  the period of three months,  or  remit
\n\t      the requirement of notice.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The respondent, a permanent officer in the bank, sent  a
\ncommunication  to  the bank on 21st January, 1986.  By\tthis
\nletter\the purported to resign from the service of the\tbank
\ndue  to personal reasons. He added that the date of  receipt
\nof the letter should be treated as the date of the commence-
\nment  of the notice period so that, inclusive of  the  same,
\nhis  resignation would become effective on 30th June,  1986.
\nAccording to the respondent, the Deputy General Manager, who
\nwas  the competent authority under the Service\tRegulations,
\nhad agreed that the resignation may be accepted with  effect
\nfrom 30th June, 1986. However, what actually transpired\t was
\nthat  the respondent received a letter from the bank on\t 7th
\nFebruary,  1986\t informing him that his\t resignation  letter
\ndated 21st January, 1986 had been accepted by the  competent
\nauthority with immediate effect by waiving the condition  of
\nnotice\tand that, consequently, he was being  relieved\tfrom
\nthe  service of the bank with effect from the  afternoon  of
\nthe  same date, namely, 7th February, 1986.  The  respondent
\nthereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court  challeng-
\ning the validity of the purported acceptance of his resigna-
\ntion with effect from 7th February, 1986 and for a direction
\nto  the\t bank to treat him as in service of the bank  up  to
\n30th June, 1986 and as entitled to all benefits while  being
\nin such service.\n<\/p>\n
    A further development took place after the filing of the
\nwrit  petition\tand before it came up for hearing.  On\t15th
\nApril,\t1986, the respondent wrote a letter to the  bank  by
\nwhich he purported to withdraw the resignation letter  dated
\n21st  January, 1986. The High Court, therefore,\t dealt\twith
\nthe  situation resulting from this  subsequent\tdevelopment.
\nThe High Court held that the petitioner’s resignation letter
\nwould  have  become effective only on the 30th\tJune,  1986.
\nUnder the regulations there was no jurisdiction whatever  in
\nthe  competent authority to determine his services  earlier.
\nUntil  the resignation became effective on 30th June,  1986,
\nthe petitioner had a right to withdraw the same and in\tfact
\nhad also exercised that right. The High Court concluded:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  may\tnotice that this writ  petition\t was
\n\t      filed at a stage
\n\t      616<\/span>
\n\t      when  the petitioner had not sent\t his  letter
\n\t      dated 15th April, 1986 whereby he withdrew his
\n\t      resignation letter dated 2 Ist January,  1986.
\n\t      This  is a subsequent development\t during\t the
\n\t      pendency\tof the writ petition. Therefore,  we
\n\t      are  not\tcalled upon to\tdecide\tthe  earlier
\n\t      grievance that the resignation could not\thave
\n\t      been accepted at an earlier date. Even to that
\n\t      submission we would have said that there is no
\n\t      provision of acceptance but that question does
\n\t      not arise so we will not deal with it further.
\n\t      Result is that the impugned order dated 7th of
\n\t      February,\t 1986  is hereby quashed and  it  is
\n\t      declared\tthat the petitioner continues to  be
\n\t      in service with the respondent-bank.  However,
\n\t      in  view\tof the facts of\t the  present  case,
\n\t      parties  are directed to bear their own  costs
\n\t      of the present proceedings.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t bank has preferred this appeal. Dr. Anand  prakash,
\nlearned\t counsel  for  the  appellant-bank,  submitted\tthat
\nregulation 20(2) provided for a notice to the employer\tonly
\nin  order to protect the employer’s interests and to  enable
\nthe employer, in case it decided to accept the\tresignation,
\nto make other arrangements in place of the resigning employ-
\nee. He submitted that, this being a provision for the  bene-
\nfit of the employer, its requirements could be waived by the
\nemployer,  if  it so desired, unilaterally- The\t proviso  to
\nclause\t(2) of the regulation indeed makes it clear that  it
\nis open to the bank to waive the requirement of notice or to
\nreduce\tthe period of the notice to less than three  months.
\nHe,  therefore, submitted that, when the respondent sent  in
\nhis resignation on 21st January, 1986, it was not  incumbent
\non  the\t bank to wait till 30th June, 1986 when\t the  notice
\nperiod would expire. It was competent for the bank to  waive
\nany notice at all and to accept the resignation with immedi-
\nate  effect or with effect from such other date as the\tbank
\nmay  consider  appropriate.  It\t was  further  contended  by
\nlearned\t counsel  that, once the resignation letter  of\t the
\nrespondent  had been accepted by the bank and  given  effect
\nto,  to there was no further possibility of  the  respondent
\nseeking\t to withdraw the resignation letter as he  has\tpur-
\nported\tto  do\tin this case.  Learned\tcounsel,  therefore,
\nsubmitted  that the bank’s letter dated 7th  February,\t1986
\nwas quite valid and effective and that the respondent’s writ
\npetition ought to have been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    We have given careful thought to this contention of\t the
\nlearned\t counsel  and we are of the opinion  that  the\tHigh
\nCourt was right in the conclusion it reached. Clause (2)  of
\nregulation 20 makes it incumbent on an officer of the  bank,
\nbefore resigning, to serve a notice in writing
\n617<\/span>
\nof  such proposed resignation and the clause also  makes  it
\nclear  that the resignation will not be effective  otherwise
\nthan on the expiry of three months from the service of\tsuch
\nnotice. There are two ways of interpreting this clause.\t One
\nis that the resignation of an employee from service being  a
\nvoluntary act on the part of an employee, he is entitled  to
\nchoose the date with effect from which his resignation would
\nbe effective and give a notice to the employer\taccordingly.
\nThe only restriction is that the proposed date should not be
\nless than three months from the date on which the notice  is
\ngiven  of the proposed resignation. On this  interpretation,
\nthe  letter  dated 21st January, 1986 sent by  the  employee
\nfully  complied\t with the terms of this clause.\t Though\t the
\nletter\twas written in January, 1986 the employee gave\tmore
\nthan three clear months’ notice and stated that he wished to
\nresign with effect from 30th of June, 1986 and so the resig-
\nnation\twould have become effective only on that  date.\t The
\nother  interpretation  is  that, when an  employee  gives  a
\nnotice of resignation, it becomes effective on the expiry of
\nthree months from the date thereof. On this  interpretation,
\nthe  respondent’s resignation would have taken effect on  or
\nabout  21.4.1986 even though he had mentioned a later  date.
\nIn  either view of the matter, the respondent’s\t resignation
\ndid  not  become effective till 21.4.1986 or  30.6.1986.  It
\nwould have normally automatically taken effect on either  of
\nthose  dates as there is no provision for any acceptance  or
\nrejection  of the resignation by the employer, as is  to  be
\nfound  in other rules, such as the Government.Services\tCon-
\nduct Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    Much reliance was placed on the terms of the proviso  to
\nclause\t(2)  of regulation 20 to justify the action  of\t the
\nbank in terminating the respondent’s services earlier but we
\ndo  not\t think that the proviso can be\tinterpreted  in\t the
\nmanner suggested by learned counsel for the bank. The resig-
\nnation\tletter\tof the officer has to give  at\tleast  three
\nmonths’\t advance notice under the main part of\tthe  clause.
\nWhat  the proviso contemplates is that in a case  where\t the
\nemployee  desires that his resignation should  be  effective
\neven  before  the expiry, of the period of three  months  or
\nwithout\t notice\t being given by him, the bank  may  consider
\nsuch a request and waive the period or requirement of notice
\nif  it\tconsiders it fit to do so. That\t question  does\t not
\narise  in  the\tpresent case because the  employee  had\t not
\nrequested  the\tbank to reduce the period of  notice  or  to
\nwaive the requirement of notice. Dr. Anand Prakash seeks  to
\ninterpret  the proviso as empowering the bank, even  without
\nany  request=  on the part of the employee,  to\t reduce\t the
\nperiod\tor waive the requirement of notice. In other  words,
\nhe  says the bank has power to accept the  resignation\twith
\nimmediate effect even though
\n618<\/span>
\nthe  notice is only of a proposed future resignation. We  do
\nnot  think this contention can be accepted. As we  have\t al-
\nready  mentioned, resignation is a voluntary act of  an\t em-
\nployee.\t He  may choose to resign with immediate  effect  or
\nwith  a notice of less than three months if the bank  agrees
\nto  the\t same. He may also resign at a future  date  on\t the
\nexpiry,\t or beyond the period, of three months but for\tthis
\nno further consent of the bank is necessary. The  acceptance
\nof the argument of Dr. Ananad Prakash would mean that,\teven
\nthough\tan-employee might express a desire to resign from  a
\nfuture\tdate, the resignation can be accepted, even  without
\nhis  wishes,  from an earlier date. This would\tnot  be\t the
\nacceptance  of\ta resignation in the terms in  which  it  is
\noffered. It amounts really to forcing a date of\t termination
\non the employee other than the one he is entitled to  choose
\nunder  the. regulations. As rightly pointed out by the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tthe termination of service under clause (2)  becomes
\neffective  at the instance of the employee and the  services
\nof  the employee cannot be terminated by the employer  under
\nthis clause.\n<\/p>\n
    Dr. Anand Prakash emphasises that as clause (2) and\t its
\nproviso are intended only to safeguard the bank’s  interests
\nthey should be interpreted on the lines suggested by him. We
\nare of the opinion that clause (2) of the regulation and its
\nproviso are intended not only for the protection of the bank
\nbut  also  for\tthe benefit of the employee.  It  is  common
\nknowledge that a person proposing to resign often wavers  in
\nhis  decision and even in a case where he has taken  a\tfirm
\ndecision tO resign, he may not be ready to go out immediate-
\nly.  In most cases he would need a period of adjustment\t and
\nhence  like to defer the actual date of relief\tfrom  duties
\nfor  a few months for various personal reasons.\t Equally  an
\nemployer  may  like to have time to  make  some\t alternative
\narrangement before relieving the resigning employee.  Clause
\n(2)  is carefully worded keeping both these requirements  in
\nmind.  It  gives  the employee a period\t of  adjustment\t and
\nrethinking.  It also enables the bank to have some  time  to
\narrange\t its  affairs, with the liberty, in  an\t appropriate
\ncase, to accept the resignation of an employee even  without
\nthe requisite notice if he so desires it. The proviso in our
\nopinion\t should\t not be interpreted as enabling\t a  bank  to
\nthrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a\tdate
\ndifferent from the one on which he can make his\t resignation
\neffective under the terms of the regulation. We,  therefore,
\nagree  with  the  High Court that in the  present  case\t the
\nresignation of the employee could have become effective only
\non or about 21st April, 1986 or on 30th June, 1986 and\tthat
\nthe  bank could not have “accepted” that resignation on\t any
\nearlier\t date.\tThe  letter dated 7th  February,  1986\twas,
\ntherefore, without jurisdiction-\n<\/p>\n
619<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t result\t of  the above interpretation  is  that\t the
\nemployee  continued  to be in service till the\t21st  April,
\n1986  or 30th June, 1986, on which date his  services  would
\nhave  come normally to an end in terms of his  letter  dated
\n21st January, 1986. But, by that time, he had exercised\t his
\nright  to  withdraw the resignation.  Since  the  withdrawal
\nletter was written before the resignation became  effective,
\nthe  resignation stands withdrawn, with the result that\t the
\nrespondent continues to be in the service of the bank. It is
\ntrue that there is no specific provision in the\t regulations
\npermitting the employee to withdraw the resignation. It\t is,
\nhowever, not necessary that there should be any such specif-
\nic rule. Until the resignation become effective on the terms
\nof  the\t letter read with regulation 20. it is open  to\t the
\nemployee,  on general principles, to withdraw his letter  of
\nresignation. That is why, in some cases of public  services,
\nthis right of withdrawal is also made subject to the permis-
\nsion  of the employer. There is no such clause here.  It  is
\nnot  necessary\tto labour this point further as it  is\twell
\nsettled by the earlier decisions of this Court in Raj  Kumar
\nv. Union of India, [1963] 3 SCR 857; Union of India v. Gopal
\nChandra Misra,<\/a> [1978] 3 SCR 12 and Balram Gupta v. Union  of
\nIndia,<\/a> [1987] Suppl. SCC 228.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned  counsel  for the appellant\t relied\t on  certain
\nobservations  in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking  v.\tTara
\nChand,\t[1987] 2 SLR 426. Certain other decisions were\talso
\ncited  by  Dr. Anand Prakash but we do not think  that\tthey
\nhave  any bearing on the issue before us. Tara Chand  was  a
\ncase under regulation 8 of the regulations made by the Delhi
\nElectric  Supply Undertaking under the Electricity  (Supply)
\nAct,  1948. The regulation permitted the termination of\t the
\nservices of a servant of the undertaking “on notice of three
\nmonths from either side without any cause to be assigned  in
\ncase of permanent servants”. The employee in that case\tsent
\na  letter to the employer stating that “he was compelled  to
\nresign for various reasons” and this resignation was accept-
\ned by the undertaking. The Delhi High Court in its  judgment
\n(to which one of us was a party) observed that notice  under
\nthe regulation was intended for the benefit of the  employer
\nwhich could, if it considered necessary or proper, waive the
\nperiod\tof notice and accept the resignation with  immediate
\neffect. But that was a case where the employee, though bound
\nto give three months’ notice, expressed his desire to resign
\nwith  immediate effect and it was also accepted by  the\t em-
\nployer.\t It was not the case that he had given notice  indi-
\ncating a desire to be relieved at a future date. The analogy
\nof that case would have applied to the present case as\twell
\nif  the respondent here had expressed his desire to  be\t re-
\nlieved\timmediately  even  before the expiry  of  the  three
\nmonths’ notice period and the bank had accepted it. The
\n620<\/span>
\nemployer  would then certainly have been entitled to  accept
\nthe  resignation, as requested by the employee, waiving\t the
\nnotice\tperiod.\t The distinction between that case  and\t the
\npresent one is that, here, the employee has chosen a  future
\ndate  on which his resignation would be effective but he  is
\nbeing forced to “resign” before such date.\n<\/p>\n
    For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the  decision
\nof  the High Court and dismiss this appeal. As the  employee
\nhas  got  a  relief much larger than the one  for  which  he
\ninitially came to Court and which has been made possible  by
\nhis subsequent conduct, we make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P  .S.S.\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\tdis-\nmissed.\n621<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1083, 1989 SCR (1) 612 Author: S Rangnathan Bench: Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RESPONDENT: P.K. MITTAL DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/02\/1989 BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) CITATION: 1989 AIR 1083 1989 SCR […]<\/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-199964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989 - 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\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989\" \/>\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=\"1989-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T00:11:12+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T00:11:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989\"},\"wordCount\":2615,\"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\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989\",\"name\":\"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T00:11:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989 - 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\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T00:11:12+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989","datePublished":"1989-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T00:11:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989"},"wordCount":2615,"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\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989","name":"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T00:11:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-vs-p-k-mittal-on-13-february-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989"}]},{"@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\/199964","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=199964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}