{"id":212747,"date":"2006-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006"},"modified":"2016-06-24T23:49:23","modified_gmt":"2016-06-24T18:19:23","slug":"midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006","title":{"rendered":"Midnapore Peoples’ Co-Op. Bank … vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Midnapore Peoples’ Co-Op. Bank … vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Singh, R. V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1727 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nMidnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors.\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nChunilal Nanda & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/05\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB. P. Singh & R. V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWith<\/p>\n
SLP (C) Nos. 13045-46\/2003<\/p>\n
RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
This civil appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated
\n26.2.2001 in M.A.T. No.4075 of 1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe first respondent was working as Secretary of the Midnapore
\nPeoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. [Appellant No.1 herein, for short the ‘Bank’].
\nAppellants 2 and 3 are respectively the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge
\nof the first appellant bank. The first respondent was kept under suspension
\npending initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in pursuance of a resolution
\nof the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 16.4.1994.  The respondent filed
\na writ petition [C.O. No. 8789(W) of 1995] challenging the suspension, inter
\nalia  on the ground that charge-sheet had not been issued. On 27.6.1995, the
\nsaid writ petition was disposed of recording the submission that the bank
\nwas issuing a charge-sheet. The Bank was directed to deliver a copy of the
\ncharge-sheet and pay the arrears of subsistence allowance within one week.
\nThe first respondent was directed to file his written statement within 10
\ndays. The Enquiry Officer was directed to conclude the enquiry within a
\nperiod of three months from the date of communication of the order subject
\nto first respondent rendering full cooperation for the conduct of the
\ndisciplinary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tA charge-sheet dated 1.7.1995 was issued to the first respondent
\ncontaining nine charges. The first Respondent filed his written statement on
\n17.7.1995. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his
\nreport dated 14.9.1995 finding the first respondent guilty of all charges. A
\ncopy of the said report was furnished to the first respondent  under cover of
\nbank’s letter dated 25.9.1995 giving him an opportunity to submit his
\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAt that stage, the first respondent filed another writ petition [CO No.
\n20008 (W) of 1995]  before the High Court for quashing the enquiry
\nproceedings alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer (Asit Mahapatra). A
\nlearned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed the said writ
\npetition by order dated 9.4.1997 in the following manner :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe enquiry proceedings and the consequential action taken by
\nthe Bank were set aside.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe Chairman of the Bank was directed to appoint someone
\nwho is not a member of the Bank’s Board of Directors as
\nEnquiry Officer by requesting the Registrar, Cooperative
\nSocieties to nominate a suitable officer preferably of the rank of
\nAsst. Registrar of  Cooperative Societies, to be the Enquiry
\nOfficer. A time bound schedule was indicated for appointment
\nof the Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe Enquiry Officer to be so appointed was required to conduct
\nenquiry de novo by observing all the principles of natural
\njustice and the applicable rules and regulations and submit his
\nreport within four months from the date of first sitting subject to
\nfirst respondent fully cooperating in the enquiry. The
\nDisciplinary Authority was directed to take suitable action on
\nthe basis of such Report.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThe Bank was directed to pay proper subsistence allowance to
\nthe first respondent during the period of suspension.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn the Bank’s request, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative
\nSocieties, Midnapore-I appointed Sri H. K. Maiti, Cooperative
\nDevelopment Officer, as Enquiry Officer on 9.5.1997. Subsequently, the
\nAssistant Registrar by communication dated 3.10.1997 revoked the
\nappointment of Sri H.K. Maiti as Enquiry Officer being of the view that the
\ntenor of the order of the High Court did not permit the appointment of Sri
\nH.K. Maiti who was only a Development Officer, as the Enquiry Officer.
\nThereafter, the Bank wrote to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on
\n24.10.1997 to nominate an officer of the rank of an Assistant Registrar for
\nbeing appointed as Enquiry Officer. In view of the delay, the Bank also
\napproached the High Court for suitable extension of time. On 19.12.1997,
\nthe court extended the time for appointment of Enquiry Officer by two
\nweeks. By order dated 5.1.1998, the Registrar nominated Sri S. K. Das,
\nAssistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Midnapore-I, for being
\nappointed as the Enquiry Officer. He was accordingly appointed as the
\nEnquiry Officer. He started a fresh enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAs the enquiry was not completed within four months from the date of
\nfirst sitting, the first respondent moved a contempt application [CPAN 2233
\nof 1997]. The Chairman of the Bank, the Enquiry Officer (S. K. Das), the
\nprevious Enquiry Officer (Sri H. K. Maiti) and the Secretary-in-Charge of
\nthe Bank were impleaded eo nomine as respondents 1 to 4 in the said
\ncontempt petition. The learned Single Judge summoned the enquiry records
\nfrom the Enquiry Officer. On perusing the records, he was of the view that
\nthe Enquiry Officer had not proceeded with due diligence. Therefore, the
\nlearned Single Judge made an order dated 20.11.1998, the operative portion
\nof which is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
“1.\tLet a Rule be issued against the respondent no.2 Sri S. K. Das,
\nAssistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Midnapore I, (charging him ?)
\nwith committing contempt of this Court (and ?) for directing him to show
\ncause as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt. The
\nRespondent no. 2 shall remain present personally on all the dates of
\nhearing in this Court. He shall file his affidavit in opposition within two
\nweeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSince the respondent no. 2 has by his conduct, disqualified himself
\nto be the Enquiry Officer, I direct that he shall cease to be the Enquiry
\nOfficer. It shall be open to the respondents, however, in the light of the
\naforesaid two orders of the Court, to appoint any other person as the
\nEnquiry Officer and to proceed with the matter once again in the light of
\nthe aforesaid directions.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe petitioner shall immediately and forthwith be reinstated in the
\nservice of the respondent Bank and shall deemed to be in their service all
\nthrough. He shall not be prevented in any manner from discharging his
\nduties and shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
Let the contempt application appear two weeks hence. The suspension
\norder shall be immediately deemed to have been revoked.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\tFeeling aggrieved, respondents 1 and 4 in the contempt petition
\n(Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge of the Bank) filed M.A.T. No.4075 of
\n1998. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said appeal as not
\nmaintainable by the impugned judgment dated 26.2.2001, on the following
\ntwo grounds :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe order of the learned Single Judge did not punish any
\ncontemnor. Therefore, the appeal could not be entertained under
\nsection 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which provided for
\nappeals only against orders punishing a contemnor.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe appeal did not satisfy the requirements of clause 15 of the
\nLetters Patent, and, therefore, could not be entertained as a Letters
\nPatent Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
While so dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench directed the appellants
\ntherein to forthwith implement the order of the learned Single Judge. The
\nsaid judgment is challenged in this civil appeal by special leave. This Court,
\nwhile granting leave on 25.2.2002, stayed the operation of the order dated
\n26.2.2001 in M.A.T. No.4075 of 1998, as also the further proceedings in the
\ncontempt petition (CPA No.2233\/1997) with a condition that the Enquiry
\nOfficer appointed in pursuance of the order dated 9.4.1997 shall complete
\nthe enquiry within six months.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn view of the observations of the Division Bench that the appeal by
\nthe Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge eo nomine was not maintainable,  and
\nto avoid any technical objections, the Bank and its Board of Directors filed
\nM.A.T. No.1102 of 2001 on 4.4.2001 challenging the order dated
\n20.11.1998 along with an application for condonation of delay. A Division
\nBench of the High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay
\nby merely stating that the delay of 728 days had not been properly
\nexplained,  and consequently dismissed the appeal.  The said order
\ndismissing the application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 and
\nconsequently, dismissing the appeal, is challenged in SLP(C) Nos.13045-46
\nof 2003.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tOn the aforesaid facts and the contentions urged, the following
\nquestions arise for consideration :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWhere the High Court, in a contempt proceedings, renders a
\ndecision on the merits of a dispute between the parties, either by an
\ninterlocutory order or final judgment, whether it is appealable
\nunder section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ? If not,
\nwhat is the remedy of the person aggrieved ?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhere such a decision on merits, is rendered by an interlocutory
\norder of a learned Single Judge, whether an intra-court appeal is
\navailable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent ?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tIn a contempt proceeding initiated by a delinquent employee
\n(against the Enquiry Officer as also  the Chairman and Secretary
\nin-charge of the employer-Bank), complaining of disobedience of
\nan order directing completion of the enquiry in a time bound
\nschedule, whether the court can direct (a) that the employer shall
\nreinstate the employee forthwith; (b) that the employee shall not be
\nprevented from discharging his duties in any manner; (c) that the
\nemployee shall be paid all arrears of salary; (d) that the Enquiry
\nOfficer shall cease to be the Enquiry Officer and the employer
\nshall appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer; and (e) that the suspension
\nshall be deemed to have been revoked ?\n<\/p>\n
Re : Point No. (i) :\n<\/p>\n
10.\tSection 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [‘CC Act’ for short]
\nprovides for appeals. Relevant portion of sub-section (1) thereof is extracted
\nbelow :\n<\/p>\n
(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court
\nin the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt –\n<\/p>\n
(a)\twhere the order or decision is that of a single Judge,
\nto a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court:\n<\/p>\n
(b)       where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the
\nSupreme Court:\n<\/p>\n
The scope of Section 19 has been considered by this Court in Baradakanta
\nMishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra<\/a> [AIR 1974 SC 2255], Purushotam
\nDass Goel v. Justice B.S. Dhillon [AIR 1978 SC 1014], Union of India v.
\nMario Cabral e Sa [AIR 1982 SC 691], D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal<\/a> [1988 (3)
\nSCC 26], State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy<\/a> [1996 (4) SCC 411]
\nand J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar<\/a> [1996 (6) SCC 291]. These cases dealt
\nwith orders refusing to initiate contempt proceedings or initiating contempt
\nproceedings or acquitting\/exonerating the contemnor or dropping the
\nproceedings for contempt. In all these cases, it was held that an appeal was
\nnot maintainable under section 19 of CC Act as the said Section only
\nprovided for an appeal in respect of orders punishing for contempt.\n<\/p>\n
10.1)\t  In Baradakanta Mishra, a three Judge Bench of this Court held that
\nan order declining to initiate a proceeding for contempt amounts to refusal to
\nassume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt and therefore, such a
\ndecision cannot be regarded as a decision in the exercise of its jurisdiction to
\npunish for contempt. The question as to whether an appeal would be
\nmaintainable under section 19 where the court initiates a proceeding for
\ncontempt but after due consideration and hearing finds the alleged
\ncontemnor not guilty of contempt, or having found him guilty declines to
\npunish him, was left open.\n<\/p>\n
10.2)\tIn Purushotam Dass Goel (supra), certain aspects of Section 19 were
\nleft open. This relevant portion is extracted below :
\nThe (contempt) proceeding is initiated under Section 17 by issuance of a
\nnotice. Thereafter, there may be many interlocutory orders passed in the
\nsaid proceeding by the High Court. It could not be the intention of the
\nlegislature to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of right from
\neach and every such order made by the High Court. The order or the
\ndecision must be such that it decides some bone of contention raised
\nbefore the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved. Mere
\ninitiation of a proceeding for contempt by the issuance of the notice on the
\nprima facie view that the case is a fit one for drawing up the proceeding,
\ndoes not decide any question… It is neither possible, nor advisable,
\nto make an exhaustive list of the type of orders which may be appealable
\nto this Court under Section 19. A final order, surely, will be appealable.\n<\/p>\n
If the alleged contemnor in response to the notice appears before the High
\nCourt and asks it to drop the proceeding on the ground of its being barred
\nunder Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the proceeding
\nis not barred, it may well be that an appeal would lie to this Court under
\nSection 19 from such an order although the proceeding has remained
\npending in the High Court. We are not called upon to express our final
\nopinion in regard to such an order, but we merely mention this type of
\norder by way of an example to show that even orders made at some
\nintermediate stage in the proceeding may be appealable under Section 19.”\n<\/p>\n
10.3)\tWhile Baradakanda Mishra and Purushotam Das left open the
\nquestion whether an appeal under section 19 would be maintainable in
\ncertain areas, in D. N. Taneja (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court,
\ncategorically held that appeals under section 19 would lie only against the
\norders punishing the contemnor for contempt and not any other order passed
\nin contempt proceedings. We extract below the relevant portions from the
\nsaid decision :\n<\/p>\n
 “The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of Section 19
\nonly against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise
\nof its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. When the High Court
\ndoes not impose any punishment on the alleged contemnor, the High Court
\ndoes not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt. The
\njurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. When no punishment is
\nimposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say that the High Court
\nhas exercised its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article
\n215 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
It is true that in considering a question whether the alleged contemnor is
\nguilty of contempt or not, the court hears the parties and considers the
\nmaterials produced before it and, if necessary, examines witnesses and,
\nthereafter, passes an order either acquitting or punishing him for contempt.
\nWhen the High Court acquits the contemnor, the High Court does not
\nexercise its jurisdiction for contempt, for such exercise will mean that the
\nHigh Court should act in a particular manner, that is to say, by imposing
\npunishment for contempt. So long as no punishment is imposed by the
\nHigh Court, the High Court cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction
\nor power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution.
\nThe aggrieved party under section 19(1) can only be the contemnor who
\nhas been punished for contempt of court.”\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
10.4)\tIn Mahboob S. Allibhoy (supra), this Court reiterated the above
\nposition thus :\n<\/p>\n
“On a plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right
\nfrom any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
\nto punish for contempt. In other words, if the High Court passes an order
\nin exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of court,
\nthen only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section
\n19 of the Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an appeal
\nshall lie as of right from any order, an impression is created that an appeal
\nhas been provided under the said sub-section against any order passed by
\nthe High Court while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt proceedings.
\nThe words ‘any order’ has to be read with the expression ‘decision’ used in
\nsaid sub-section which the High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction
\nto punish for contempt. ‘Any order’ is not independent of the expression
\n‘decision’. They have been put in an alternative form saying ‘order’ or
\n‘decision’. In either case, it must be in the nature of punishment for
\ncontempt. If the expression ‘any order’ is read independently of the
\n“decision” then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (I) of Section 19 even
\nagainst any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for contempt by the
\nHigh Court which shall lead to a ridiculous result.”\n<\/p>\n
10.5)\tJ. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar<\/a> (supra) is nearest to this case, on
\nfacts. A contempt petition was filed alleging that the seniority list drawn
\npursuant to the order of the High Court was not in conformity with the said
\norder. The High Court found it to be so, but held that the disobedience  was
\nnot willful and, therefore, did not punish for contempt. But the High Court
\ngave a direction to redraw the seniority list. The State Government
\nchallenged the said direction in an intra court appeal. The Division Bench
\nheld that the appeal was not maintainable under section 19 of the CC Act,
\nbut was maintainable as an intra-court appeal as the direction issued by the
\nsingle Judge would be a “judgment” within the meaning of  that expression
\nin section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. Accordingly, the Division
\nBench set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge  to re-do the list.
\nThe said order was challenged before this Court. This Court confirmed the
\ndecision of the Division Bench and held as follows :
\n“Therefore, an appeal would lie under section 19 when an order in
\nexercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court punishing the contemnor has
\nbeen passed. In this case, the finding was that the respondents had not
\nwilfully disobeyed the order. So there is no order punishing the respondent
\nfor violation of the orders of the High Court. Accordingly, an appeal under
\nsection 19 would not lie.\n<\/p>\n
The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt
\nproceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with-the directions
\nissued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed
\nby the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there
\narises a fresh cause of act on to seek redressal in an appropriate forum.
\nThe preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may
\nor may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh
\ncause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of
\njudicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of
\nthe order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings,
\na fresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the
\nseniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the
\njurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings.
\nIt would not be permissible .”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals
\nagainst orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus :
\nI.\tAn appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against
\nan order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its
\njurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing
\npunishment for contempt.\n<\/p>\n
II.\tNeither an order declining to initiate proceedings for
\ncontempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor
\nan order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order
\nacquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under
\nSection 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may
\nbe open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
\nIII.\tIn a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide
\nwhether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so,
\nwhat should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto.
\nIn such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or
\ndecide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
IV. \tAny direction issued or decision made by the High Court
\non the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the
\nexercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and therefore,
\nnot appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception
\nis where such direction or decision is incidental to or
\ninextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt,
\nin which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also
\nencompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
\nV.\tIf the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an
\nissue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the
\ndispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the
\naggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open
\nto challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a
\nlearned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court
\nappeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136
\nof the Constitution of India (in other cases).\n<\/p>\n
The first point is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Point No. (ii) :\n<\/p>\n
12.\tWe will next consider as to whether an intra-court appeal under
\nclause 15 of the Letters Patent was available against the interlocutory
\norder dated 20.11.1998 containing the directions on merits of the
\ndispute. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from a
\n‘judgment’ of a single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction, to a
\nDivision Bench. In Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr.<\/a>
\n[AIR 1981 SC 1786], the scope of clause 15 of the Letters Patent was
\nconsidered. This Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“The concept of a judgment as defined by the Code of Civil
\nProcedure seems to be rather narrow and the limitations engrafted
\nby sub-section (2) of section 2 cannot be physically imported into
\nthe definition of the word ‘judgment’ as used in Cl. 15 of the
\nLetters Patent because the Letters Patent has advisedly not used the
\nterm ‘order’ or ‘decree’ anywhere. The intention, therefore, of the
\ngivers of the Letters Patent was that the word ‘judgment’ should
\nreceive a much wider and more liberal interpretation than the word
\n‘judgment’ used in the Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time,
\nit cannot be said that any order passed by a trial Judge would
\namount to a judgment; otherwise there will be no end to the
\nnumber of orders which would be appealable under the Letters
\nPatent. It seems to us that the word ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a
\nconcept of finality in a broader and not a narrower sense. In other
\nwords, a judgment can be of three kinds  (1) A final Judgment
\n.. (2) A preliminary Judgment .. (3) Intermediary or
\ninterlocutory judgment  – Most of the interlocutory orders which
\ncontain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to
\n(w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and have already been held by us to be
\njudgments within the meaning of the Letters Patent and, therefore,
\nappealable. There may also be interlocutory orders which are not
\ncovered by Order 43, Rule 1 but which also possess the
\ncharacteristics and trappings of finality in that, the orders may
\nadversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important
\naspect of the trial in an ancillary proceedings. Before such an order
\ncan be a judgment the adverse effect on the party concerned must
\nbe direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote
\nin other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a
\njudgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide
\nmatters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties
\nand which work serious injustice to the party concerned.”
\n“.any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the
\ntrial Judge in the course of the suit which may cause some
\ninconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice one party or the other
\ncannot be treated as a judgment, otherwise the appellate court
\n(Division Bench) will be flooded with appeals from all kinds of
\norders passed by the trial Judge. .. the interlocutory
\norder in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and
\ntrappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in
\ncontroversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a
\npart of the proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
14.\tClause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court
\n(corresponding to clause 15 of Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court)
\nwas considered by this Court in Central Mine Planning and Design
\nInstitute Ltd. v. Union of India [2001 (2) SCC 588]. In that case, the
\naward of an Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement and payment
\nof partial backwages was challenged in a writ petition before the High
\nCourt of Patna. The workman claimed interim relief under section 17-
\nB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge
\ndirected the employer to pay full wages to the workman during the
\npendency of the writ petition. That was challenged in a Letters Patent
\nAppeal. The Division Bench held that the Letters Patent Appeal was
\nnot maintainable as the order directing payment under section 17-B of
\nthe I.D. Act was not a ‘judgment’. Reversing  the said decision, this
\nCourt held that an interlocutory order passed in a writ proceeding
\ndirecting payment under section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
\nwas a final determination affecting the vital and valuable rights and
\nobligations of parties and, therefore, would fall under the category of
\n‘intermediary or interlocutory judgment’ against which a Letters
\nPatent Appeal would lie. The following observations are relevant :
\n“It is now well settled that the definition of “judgment” in section
\n2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to Letters
\nPatent  .., it follows that to determine the
\nquestion whether an interlocutory order passed by one Judge of a
\nHigh Court falls within the meaning of ‘judgment’ for purposes of
\nLetters Patent the test is : Whether the order is a final
\ndetermination affecting vital and valuable rights and obligations of
\nthe parties concerned. This has to be ascertained on the facts of
\neach case.”\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe above principle was reiterated in Mithailal Dalsangar
\nSingh vs. Annabai Devram Kini<\/a> [2003 (10) SCC 691] and Subal Paul
\nvs. Malina Paul<\/a> [2003 (10) SCC 361]. In the latter case, this Court
\nheld :\n<\/p>\n
“While determining the question as regards clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
\nthe court is required to see as to whether the order sought to be appealed
\nagainst is a judgment within the meaning thereof or not. Once it is held
\nthat irrespective of the nature of the order, meaning thereby whether
\ninterlocutory or final, a judgment has been rendered, clause 15 of the
\nLetters Patent would be attracted.  Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
\nconfers a right of appeal on a litigant against any judgment passed under
\nany Act unless the same is expressly excluded. Clause 15 may be subject
\nto an Act but when it is not so subject to the special provision the power
\nand jurisdiction of the High Court under clause 15 to entertain any appeal
\nfrom a judgment would be effective.”\n<\/p>\n
16.\tInterim orders\/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency
\nof a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tOrders which finally decide a question or issue in
\ncontroversy in the main case.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and
\ndirectly affects the final decision in the main case.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question
\nwhich is not the subject matter of the main case.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of
\nthe case till its culmination in the final judgment.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some
\nprejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the
\nrights and obligations of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
The term ‘judgment’ occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will
\ntake into its fold not only the judgments as defined in section 2(9)
\nCPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other
\norders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the
\nrights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may
\nhave finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the
\nvital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory
\norders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore,
\n‘judgments’ for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent.
\nOn the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not
\n‘judgments’ for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters
\nPatent.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe next question is whether the appeal was not maintainable
\nbecause, it was filed by the Chairman and the Secretary-in-Charge of
\nthe Bank eo nomine, and not by the “Bank” itself. The order dated
\n20.11.1998 against which the appeal was filed, was passed by the
\nlearned single Judge in the course of contempt proceedings. The
\nChairman and the Secretary-in-Charge were parties to such
\nproceedings having been impleaded eo nomine as respondents 1 and 4
\nrespectively. The ‘Bank’ as such was not a party to the contempt
\nproceedings. The learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the
\nChairman and the Secretary-in-Charge represented the ‘Bank’ by
\nreferring to them as ‘Respondent Bank’ and directing them to reinstate
\nthe complainant (first respondent herein) and to pay all salary arrears
\nto him. If the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge were considered as
\nrepresenting the Bank for issuing such directions, certainly they could
\nfile an appeal against such directions. The directions were issued to
\nthem and they were the persons aggrieved.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe Division Bench, therefore, committed a serious and
\nobvious error in holding that the appeal [MAT 4075\/1998] was not
\nmaintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Though the order
\nof the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.1998, by which several
\ndirections to the Bank with reference to first Respondent were issued,
\nis not a final ‘judgment’, it is an ‘interlocutory judgment’ which
\nfinally decides several rights and obligations of the employee vis-`-vis
\nthe employer and therefore, appealable under clause 15 of the Letters
\nPatent.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Point No. (iii) :\n<\/p>\n
19.\tAs noticed above, by order dated 9.4.1997 in C.O.
\nNo.200008(W)\/1995, the first inquiry proceedings were set aside and
\nthe Chairman of the Bank was directed to appoint an outsider,
\npreferably  an officer from the Co-operative Department, as the
\nEnquiry Officer,  with a further direction that such Enquiry Officer
\nshould conduct the enquiry de novo, and submit the report within four
\nmonths (from the date of first sitting), and a direction to the first
\nrespondent to fully co-operate in the enquiry. The time stipulated for
\nappointment of the Enquiry Officer was extended by two weeks on
\n19.12.1997. The new Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Registrar
\nof Co-operative Societies, on 5.1.1998. The inquiry was not
\ncompleted within four months and that led to the initiation of the
\ncontempt proceedings by the employee (first respondent). The
\nChairman of the Bank, the Enquiry Officer, the previous Enquiry
\nOfficer (H. K. Maiti, whose appointment was revoked on 3.10.1997)
\nand the Secretary-in-Charge of the Bank were shown as
\ncontemnors\/respondents 1 to 4.  As H.K. Maiti was not a party to the
\nwrit petition, and as he did not conduct the enquiry, there was no
\nquestion of his disobeying any order. After perusing the records, the
\ncourt  by order dated 20.11.1998 came to the conclusion that a prima
\nfacie case was made out for issuing a show cause notice only against
\nSri S.K. Das (Enquiry Officer). This meant that no case was made out
\nfor issue of show cause notice to the Chairman and Secretary-in-
\nCharge of the Bank.  In fact, it was not the case of the first respondent
\nthat after the appointment of S.K. Das as Enquiry Officer, there was
\nany disobedience by the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIn the circumstances, the court ought to have proceeded to
\nconsider whether there was any wilful disobedience of the order dated
\n9.4.1997, on the part of S K Das and if so, punish him for contempt.
\nAs S.K. Das was nowhere in the picture when the order dated
\n9.4.1997 was passed in the writ petition, and as he was appointed as
\nan independent Enquiry Officer only by an order dated 5.1.1988 and
\nas there was a complaint about the non-cooperation by the first
\nrespondent, (delinquent employee), it is doubtful whether there was
\nany case for even issuing a show cause notice to him. Be that as it
\nmay. We are not concerned with the issue of show cause notice to
\nS.K. Das in this appeal. What is relevant to be noticed is that the
\nlearned Single Judge could not have made an order in the contempt
\nproceedings, that Sri S.K. Das had, by his conduct, disqualified
\nhimself to be the Enquiry Officer and that he shall cease to be the
\nEnquiry Officer and that another Enquiry Officer shall be appointed.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tThere was also no justification for the further direction by the
\nlearned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings, that too by an
\ninterlocutory order, that the complainant should immediately and
\nforthwith be reinstated into the service of the Bank, and shall be
\ndeemed to be in the service of the Bank all through, that the employee
\nshall not be prevented in any manner from discharging his duties and
\nthat he shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks, and that
\nthe suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked. These
\nwere totally outside the scope of the proceedings for contempt and
\namounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the
\ncontempt proceedings. At all events, on the facts and circumstances,
\nthere was no disobedience, breach or neglect on the part of the Bank
\nand its President and Secretary, to provoke the court to issue such
\ndirections, even assuming that such directions could be issued in the
\ncourse of the contempt proceedings. Hence, directions (2) and (3) and
\nthe direction relating to revocation of suspension are liable to be set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
Re : SLP (c) Nos. 13045-46\/2003\n<\/p>\n
22.\tThese SLPs. arise out of the order dated 3.9.2001 in MAT No.
\n1102\/2001 filed by the Bank against the order dated 20.11.1998 in
\nCPAN No. 2237\/1997. As we have held that the appeal filed by the
\nChairman and Secretary on behalf of the Bank [MAT No. 4075\/1998]
\nagainst the said order was maintainable, these SLPs. have become
\ninfructuous.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusion :\n<\/p>\n
23.\tDuring the pendency of this appeal, the Enquiry Officer has
\ncompleted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 18.7.2002. No
\naction has been taken thereon in view of the pendency of this civil
\nappeal and the interim order dated 25.2.2002 which permitted only the
\ncompletion of the enquiry. In view of this decision, there will now be
\nno impediment for the Bank to take further action based on such
\nInquiry Report.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tIn view of the above, we dispose of these matters as follows :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tCA No. 1727\/2002 is allowed. The order dated 26.2.2001 of
\nthe Calcutta High Court in MAT No. 4075\/1998 is set aside.
\nDirections (2) and (3) as also the direction that “the
\nsuspension shall be immediately deemed to have been
\nrevoked” contained in the order dated 20.11.1998 of the
\nlearned Single Judge passed in CPAN No.2233\/1997
\n(arising from C.O. No. 20008(W) of 1995) are deleted.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tSLP (C) Nos. 13045-46\/2003 are dismissed as infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe appellant-Bank is at liberty to take further action in
\npursuance of the Inquiry Report dated 18.7.2002, in
\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tParties to bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Midnapore Peoples’ Co-Op. Bank … vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006 Author: Raveendran Bench: B. P. Singh, R. V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1727 of 2002 PETITIONER: Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. RESPONDENT: Chunilal Nanda & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/05\/2006 BENCH: B. P. Singh […]<\/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-212747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMidnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006 - 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\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-24T18:19:23+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Midnapore Peoples’ Co-Op. Bank … vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T18:19:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5763,\"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\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006\",\"name\":\"Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T18:19:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Midnapore Peoples’ Co-Op. Bank … vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006 - 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\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-24T18:19:23+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Midnapore Peoples’ Co-Op. Bank … vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T18:19:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006"},"wordCount":5763,"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\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006","name":"Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank ... vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T18:19:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/midnapore-peoples-co-op-bank-vs-chunilal-nanda-ors-on-25-may-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Midnapore Peoples’ Co-Op. Bank … vs Chunilal Nanda & Ors on 25 May, 2006"}]},{"@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\/212747","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=212747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}