{"id":23743,"date":"2011-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011"},"modified":"2016-06-30T17:46:21","modified_gmt":"2016-06-30T12:16:21","slug":"h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: J S Khehar<\/div>\n
Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Jagdish Singh Khehar<\/div>\n
                                                        1\n\n\n\n                                                               \"NON-REPORTABLE\"\n\n\n                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n              SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10845 of 2009\n\n\n\n\nH.S. Rajashekara                                                     .... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                          Versus\n\n\nState Bank of Mysore & Anr.                                          .... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.     The petitioner herein was inducted into the service of the State Bank <\/p>\n
of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as, the Bank) as a temporary Sub-Staff <\/p>\n
in 1985.   He was intermittently taken into employment based on the need <\/p>\n
for such staff.  During the year 1994-95, he claims to have rendered more <\/p>\n
than 240 days of service in a calendar year.   Based thereon, he claimed <\/p>\n
that   he   be   included   in   the   “protected   category”   of   employees.     Having <\/p>\n
satisfied   the   “protected   category”   criteria,   the   petitioner   applied   for <\/p>\n
absorption   as   a   permanent   employee,   by   citing   the   example   of   one <\/p>\n
Devaraju,   by   addressing   representations   to   the   Bank.     It   is   also   the <\/p>\n
contention   of   the   petitioner,   that   the   employees   union   of   the   Bank   also <\/p>\n
addressed a communication dated 13.12.1997 to the management of the <\/p>\n
                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
Bank requiring it to absorb the petitioner as a permanent employee.  Since <\/p>\n
the representations made by the petitioner, and recommendation made by <\/p>\n
the employees union of the Bank, did not result in any consideration at the <\/p>\n
hands of the Bank, the petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka <\/p>\n
(hereinafter  referred  to  as, the  High  Court)  by  filing  a  Writ  Petition being <\/p>\n
W.P. No. 45932 of 1999.  The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be disposed  <\/p>\n
of   by   a   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   on   14.12.2004.     In   this <\/p>\n
behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the High Court did not examine <\/p>\n
the merits of the controversy raised by the petitioner.   Rather than doing <\/p>\n
that,   the   High   Court   directed   the   Bank   to   take   a   decision   on   the <\/p>\n
representation   made   by   the   petitioner   by   passing   a   written   order.     The <\/p>\n
Bank was also directed to communicate the same to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
2.      The bank, while examining the claim raised by the petitioner, noticed <\/p>\n
the contention of the petitioner as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “(i)     He   has   worked   in   several   branches   in   Mysore   during   the <\/p>\n
                 period 1985 to 1997.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        (ii)     During 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995, he has served for 292 days.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n        (iii)    State Bank of Mysore Employees Union has recommended \n\n                 him   to   be   employed   on   permanent   basis.     He   has   given \n\n                 applications in this regard.\n\n\n        (iv)     He has passed SSLC.\n\n\n        (v)      One of his colleagues, one Shri Devaraju has also passed \n\n                 SSLC and  he  has  been  given  employment  on  permanent \n\n                 basis.     Therefore,   he   has   prayed   for   passing   of   suitable \n\n\n                                                 3<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                order   of   appointment   in   his   favour   equivalent   to   the   job <\/p>\n
                given to one Shri Devaraju.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
Despite the aforesaid pleas raised at the hands of the petitioner, the Bank <\/p>\n
by an order dated 24.8.2005, rejected the petitioner’s claim for absorption  <\/p>\n
as a permanent employee.  Two reasons were indicated in the order dated <\/p>\n
24.8.2005  for not accepting  the petitioner’s  claim.   It was  found,  that the <\/p>\n
petitioner had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, and that, he had <\/p>\n
qualified the SSLC examination.  The petitioner approached the High Court <\/p>\n
yet   again,   to   impugn   the   order   dated   24.8.2005.     At   this   juncture,   the <\/p>\n
petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005.  Having dealt with the <\/p>\n
controversy   raised   by   the   petitioner,   the   High   Court   by   its   order   dated  <\/p>\n
13.11.2007,   held   that   the   petitioner   was   not   entitled   to   absorption   as   a <\/p>\n
permanent   employee.     The   learned   Single   Judge,   while   dismissing   Writ <\/p>\n
Petition No. 22324 of 2005 acknowledged, that the petitioner had worked <\/p>\n
for 292 days from 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995.  Despite the aforesaid, the High <\/p>\n
Court   was   of   the   view,   that   the   petitioner   could   not   be   given   the   benefit  <\/p>\n
claimed by him.   This conclusion was drawn because the service for 240 <\/p>\n
days in a “calendar year”, was to be determined with reference to service <\/p>\n
rendered between the 1st day of January of a particular year, upto 31st day <\/p>\n
of December of the same year.   Examined  on the basis of the aforesaid <\/p>\n
parameters, it was concluded, that the petitioner had not render service for <\/p>\n
a   period   of   240   days   in   a   “calendar   year”.     It   was   also   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
concluded,   that  the   petitioner  had   not  worked   in  one  branch  of  the   bank <\/p>\n
during   the   period   from   8.7.1994   to   30.8.1995.     It   was   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
concluded, that while computing 240 days in a “calendar year” only service <\/p>\n
rendered   in   one   branch   of   the   Bank   could   have   been   taken   into <\/p>\n
consideration.     It  was   accordingly   held,   that  service  rendered  in  different <\/p>\n
branches could not be added together to calculate the period of 240 days  <\/p>\n
(in a “calendar year”).   As such, the claim raised by the petitioner did not  <\/p>\n
find favour with the High Court in its order dated 13.11.2007.<\/p>\n
3.     The petitioner  assailed  the  order  dated  13.11.2007,  passed  by the <\/p>\n
learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   (while   disposing   of   Writ  Petition <\/p>\n
No.   22324   of   2005),   by   preferring   Writ   Appeal   No.   24   of   2008.     The <\/p>\n
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid Writ Appeal on <\/p>\n
4.11.2008.     While   adjudicating   upon   the   controversy,   the   Division   Bench <\/p>\n
referred   to   the   judgment   rendered   by   this   Court   in  Secretary,   State   of  <\/p>\n
Karnataka   &   Ors.   Vs.   Uma   Devi   &   Ors.   [(2006)   4   SCC   1],   so   as   to <\/p>\n
conclude,  that the petitioner  was  not entitled to regularization  in terms of <\/p>\n
the parameters laid down by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     We  have   given   our   thoughtful   consideration   to   the   claim   raised   by <\/p>\n
the petitioner.   The petitioner had approached the High Court, in the first  <\/p>\n
instance,  by filing  Writ  Petition  No.  45932  of  1999.     The  issue   raised  by <\/p>\n
him as far back in the year 1999 remains unsettled till today.  The claim of <\/p>\n
                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
the   petitioner   as   has   been   projected   in   the   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
respondents   on   24.8.2005   was   clear   and   unambiguous,   namely,   that   he <\/p>\n
should be given the same benefit as was given to Shri Devaraju who had  <\/p>\n
qualified the SSLC examination just like the petitioner, and despite thereof, <\/p>\n
he   was   absorbed   as   a   permanent   employee.     The   claim   raised   by   the <\/p>\n
petitioner was primarily raised under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution <\/p>\n
of India.  The petitioner prayed for parity with the aforesaid Shri Devaraju. <\/p>\n
This   claim   of   the   petitioner   was   correctly   appreciated,   inasmuch   as,   the <\/p>\n
same   was   clearly   noticed   in   the   impugned   order   dated   24.8.2005. <\/p>\n
Unfortunately,  even though the High Court by its order dated 14.12.2004 <\/p>\n
(while disposing of Writ Petition No. 45932 of 1999) had directed the Bank <\/p>\n
to  decide  the  representation  made  by  the  petitioner,   yet   the  claim  of  the <\/p>\n
petitioner based on a similar benefit having been granted to Shri Devaraju, <\/p>\n
was never adjudicated upon.  The same claim was raised by the petitioner <\/p>\n
before   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition   No.   22324   of   2005,   (wherein   the <\/p>\n
petitioner assailed the order passed by the Bank on 24.8.2005).  Yet again, <\/p>\n
the   contention   remained   unanswered.     Thereafter,   the   learned   Division <\/p>\n
Bench   (in   Writ   Appeal   No.24   of   2008)   again   rejected   the   claim   of   the <\/p>\n
petitioner   without   reference   to   his   principal   prayer,   viz.,   parity   with   Shri <\/p>\n
Devaraju.     The   appeal   preferred   by   the   petitioner,   assailing   the   order <\/p>\n
passed   by  the   learned   Single   Judge   in   Writ  Petition   No.  22324   of   2005, <\/p>\n
was adjudicated upon with reference to the decision rendered by this Court <\/p>\n
                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. [supra] even <\/p>\n
though the same had no relevance  to the prayer  made by the petitioner. <\/p>\n
The   simple   question   raised   by   the   petitioner   was,   with   reference   to   the <\/p>\n
decision   of   the   Bank   in   absorbing   Shri   Devaraju,   as   a   permanent <\/p>\n
employee.  The claim of the petitioner was founded under Articles 14 and <\/p>\n
16 of the Constitution of India.  Unfortunately, the aforesaid issue was not <\/p>\n
considered   even   in   the   second   round   of   litigation.     The   matter   has   now <\/p>\n
been placed for our consideration, at the hands of the petitioner, through <\/p>\n
the instance Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.       We  have   given   our   thoughtful   consideration   to   the   claim   raised   by <\/p>\n
the petitioner.   The learned Single Judge while deciding Writ Petition No. <\/p>\n
22324 of 2005 acknowledged, that the petitioner had worked for 292 days <\/p>\n
from 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995.  That, coupled with the fact, that Shri Devaraju <\/p>\n
was absorbed as a permanent employee even though he had qualified the <\/p>\n
SSLC examination, in our view, should have been sufficient to examine the <\/p>\n
claim   raised   by   the   petitioner   without   reference   to   the   disqualification   of <\/p>\n
having qualified the SSLC examination.   In  Radha Raman Samanta   Vs.  <\/p>\n
Bank   of   India,   (2004)   1   SCC   605,   this   Court   relied   upon   the   following <\/p>\n
observations recorded in  Budge Budge Jute Mills Co. Ltd.  v.  Workmen,<\/a>  <\/p>\n
(1970) 1 LLJ 222 (SC), to record its observations :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         from   para   17   “…..Thus   a  badli  workman   only   means   a   person <\/p>\n
      who  is employed  as a  casual  workman  who  is working  in place  of <\/p>\n
                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    another.   By   virtue   of   the   bipartite   agreement   published   in   Circular <\/p>\n
    No. XVIII\/90\/20 dated 7-9-1990 of the federation of the Bank, such a <\/p>\n
    badli  worker is entitled to be absorbed if he completes 240 days of <\/p>\n
    badli  service   in   a   block   of   twelve   months   or   a   calendar   year   after <\/p>\n
    10.2.1988. Based on the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single <\/p>\n
    Judge   after   considering   the   relevant   documents,   the   fact   of   the <\/p>\n
    appellant’s   service   for   the   required   period   cannot   be   disputed. <\/p>\n
    Nomenclature of his work profile may change, but it is clear that he <\/p>\n
    rendered  services  in a  vacancy  of a  temporary  post  for more  than <\/p>\n
    240 days. This is sufficient to treat him as a badli for the purpose of <\/p>\n
    absorption…..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
It   is   therefore   clear,   that   for   labour   related   matters   the   terms   “calendar <\/p>\n
year”     and   “block   of   twelve   months”   are   interchangeable.     It   would   be <\/p>\n
sufficient, if the petitioner could establish, that he had rendered more than <\/p>\n
240 days  service in a “block of twelve  months”.    This in our view should  <\/p>\n
have   been   the   determinating   factor   in   a   case   where   the   consideration <\/p>\n
pertained to the consideration of an employee’s claim for inclusion in the  <\/p>\n
“protected   category”   merely   on   account   of   having   rendered   240   days <\/p>\n
service in a “calendar year”.  In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the <\/p>\n
petitioner fulfilled the condition of having rendered service for 240 days in a <\/p>\n
“calendar year”.  The pleadings in the instant Petition for Special Leave to <\/p>\n
Appeal,   as   also,   the   judgments   and   orders   appended   thereto   do   not <\/p>\n
disclose any condition to the effect, that service rendered while computing <\/p>\n
240   days   in   a   “calendar   year”,   should   have   been   rendered   in   the   same <\/p>\n
branch   of   the   Bank.     Keeping   these   factual   ingredients   in   mind,   and   the <\/p>\n
fact that the petitioner has been suffering litigation since the year 1999, we  <\/p>\n
feel   that   it  would   not   be   appropriate   to   require   the   re-adjudication   of   the <\/p>\n
                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
entire controversy all over again.   In the peculiar facts and circumstances <\/p>\n
noticed   hereinabove,   we   direct   the   respondent   Bank   to   absorb   the <\/p>\n
petitioner as a permanent employee in the Sub-Staff cadre on the basis of <\/p>\n
having   rendered   service   for   more   than   240   days   during   1994-95.     The <\/p>\n
petitioner would not be entitled to any further remuneration for the period <\/p>\n
hitherto   before,   other   than   difference   in   emoluments,   for   the   service <\/p>\n
already   rendered   by   him.     This   decision   shall   not   be   treated   as   a <\/p>\n
precedent,  as the same has been rendered  keeping in mind the peculiar <\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.     Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   …………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (Asok Kumar Ganguly)<\/p>\n
                                                   …………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (Jagdish Singh Khehar)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
November 24, 2011.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011 Author: J S Khehar Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Jagdish Singh Khehar 1 “NON-REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10845 of 2009 H.S. Rajashekara …. Petitioner Versus State Bank of Mysore & […]<\/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-23743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nH.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011 - 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\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-30T12:16:21+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T12:16:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1741,\"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\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011\",\"name\":\"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T12:16:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011 - 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\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-30T12:16:21+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T12:16:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011"},"wordCount":1741,"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\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011","name":"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T12:16:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-s-rajashekara-vs-state-bank-of-mysore-anr-on-24-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H.S.Rajashekara vs State Bank Of Mysore & Anr on 24 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/23743","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=23743"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23743\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}