{"id":3844,"date":"1963-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963"},"modified":"2017-06-01T04:15:23","modified_gmt":"2017-05-31T22:45:23","slug":"canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963","title":{"rendered":"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCANARA BANKING CORPORATION LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nU. VITTAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/04\/1963\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial Dispute-Transfer of a Bank employee not belonging\nto   subordinate  staff-Application  of\t Sastry\t Award-\t  No\nabsolute  prohibition-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  (14  of\n1947), s. 33A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent, a Bank employee not belonging to Subordinate\nstaff,\twas transferred from one station to another.  In  an\napplication  filed  by him under s. 33A\t of  the  Industrial\nDisputes.  Act, he contended that the order of his  transfer\nwas mala fide and as was act of victimisation for his lawful\ntrade  union activities.  He prayed for the cancellation  of\nhis  transfer order.  His prayer was accepted by the  Labour\nCourt  which  held that the transfer of the  respondent\t was\nagainst\t the Sastry Award which provided that a\t clerk\tlike\nthe respondent could not be transferred outside the State or\nthe  language area in which he had been serving except\twith\nhis consent.\nThe  appellant\tcame to this Court by  special\tleave.\t His\ncontention  was\t that the Sastry Award\tdid  not  absolutely\nprohibit the Bank from transferring workmen not belonging to\nthe subordinate staff outside the State or the language area\nin  which  he  had been serving\t except\t with  his  consent.\nMoreover, as the order of the Bank had been found to be bona\nfide, there was no contravention of the Sastry Award,\nHeld  that the Sastry Award makes a distinction between\t the\nworkmen\t belonging  to\tthe subordinate\t staff\tand  others.\nWhile there was absolute prohibition against the transfer of\nthe subordinate staff from their language area, there was no\nsuch absolute prohibition with regard to other workmen.\t The\nSastry\tAward had laid down that \"as far as  possible\",\t the\nother  workmen\twere  not to be\t transferred  outside  their\nlanguage  area\tbut that left discretion with the  Banks  to\ntransfer  employee of the category of the respondent if\t the\nbest interests\n 269\nof the Bank so required.  It was for the Bank to decide\t how\nto distribute its manpower in its best interests,  Transfers\nwere to be avoided if that could be done without  scarifying\nthe interests of the Bank.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE.JURISDICTION  : Civil Appeal  Nos.  755  of<br \/>\n1962.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal by special leave from the order dated March 5,  1962,<br \/>\nof  the Labour Court (Central) Ahmedabad, in  Complaint\t No.<br \/>\n153 of 1961 in Reference No. 1 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.   V.\t Phadke,  S.  N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath\t and  P.  L.<br \/>\nVohra, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>M. K. Ramamurthi; for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>1963.  April 22.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nDAS  GUPTA  J.-This appeal by special leave is\tagainst\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in an\t application<br \/>\nby  the respondent under s. 33A of the\tIndustrial  Disputes<br \/>\nAct.  The appellant is a banking company which has  numerous<br \/>\nbranches all over southern India.  The respondent joined the<br \/>\nservice\t of  the appellant-bank on June 14, 1951  and  after<br \/>\nconfirmation in September 1952 was posted at Udipi.  He\t was<br \/>\nlater transferred to Trichur; but on his representation\t was<br \/>\ntransferred to Mandvi Branch, Bombay, in July 1956.  On\t May<br \/>\n20,  1961,  another  order  of\ttransfer  was  made  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant-bank posting the respondent back at Trichur.\t The<br \/>\npresent\t application  under S. 33A was made  on\t August\t 26,<br \/>\n1961,  praying\tthat the transfer order of May 20,  1961  be<br \/>\ncancelled  and\tthe  respondent\t permitted  to\tcontinue  at<br \/>\nBombay.\t  It  was  alleged  in\tthe  application  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant made the transfer order mala fide and as an Act<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">270<\/span><br \/>\nof  victimization for the lawful trade union  activities  of<br \/>\nthe complainant.  It was also alleged that the transfer\t was<br \/>\nmade to deprive the complainant of his lawful dues.<br \/>\nThis  application  was made before the\tNational  Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal at Bombay before which proceedings in respect of an<br \/>\nindustrial  dispute  between  the  appellant-bank  and\t its<br \/>\nworkmen was then pending.  The National Tribunal transferred<br \/>\nthe   application  to  the  labour  Court,  Ahmedabad,\t for<br \/>\ndisposal.   Before the Labour Court the appellant  contended<br \/>\nthat there had been no contravention of the provisions of s.<br \/>\n33 of the Industrial Disputes Act as no change had been made<br \/>\nin the service conditions of the respondent&#8217;s employment and<br \/>\nfurther that the transfer had been made bona fide on account<br \/>\nof sheer business considerations and exigencies of business.<br \/>\nIt was also contended that the order of transfer made by the<br \/>\nbank did not offend the\t terms\tof the Sastry Award  on\t the<br \/>\nquestion of transfer of Bank employees. The  labour    Court<br \/>\nheld   that  under  the\t terms\tof  the\t Sastry\t Award\t the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  right to transfer his employees was limited  to<br \/>\nthis  extent that a clerk like the respondent could  not  be<br \/>\ntransferred  outside the State or language area in which  he<br \/>\nhad  been  serving except with his  consent.   Holding\tthat<br \/>\nthere  had been no such consent, it came to  the  conclusion<br \/>\nthat  the conditions of service of the respondent  had\tbeen<br \/>\naltered\t in  a manner not in accordance\t with  the  standing<br \/>\norder contained in the Sastry Award.  Proceeding next on the<br \/>\nassumption  that  the  Sastry Award permitted  the  Bank  to<br \/>\ntransfer clerks outside the State or the language area\twhen<br \/>\nit  was\t in  the  interests  of\t the  Bank&#8217;s  business,\t  it<br \/>\nconsidered  the\t question  whether the\tbank  had  no  other<br \/>\nalternative  but to transfer this particular  clerk  outside<br \/>\nthe State or the language area in which he had been  serving<br \/>\nand came to the conclusion that this had not been<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 271<\/span><br \/>\nestablished by the Bank.  The Court rejected the  allegation<br \/>\nthat the transfer had been made to victimize the  respondent<br \/>\nfor his union activities.  Being of opinion however that  by<br \/>\nthe  transfer  the  appellant  had  materially\taltered\t the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s service conditions and this alteration was\t not<br \/>\nin accordance with Sastry Award, the Court directed the bank<br \/>\nto   cancel  the  transfer  order  and\tto  retransfer\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant  to\t Mandvi Branch, Bombay.\t The  Bank  has\t now<br \/>\nappealed against this direction.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  relevant direction in the Sastry Award on the  question<br \/>\nof transfer is in these words :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;We  direct that in general the policy  should<br \/>\n\t      be   to\tlimit  the  transfers\tto   minimum<br \/>\n\t      consistent   with\t  the  banking\t needs\t and<br \/>\n\t      efficiency.    So\t far  as  members   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      subordinate establishment are concerned  there<br \/>\n\t      should be no transfers ordinarily and if there<br \/>\n\t      are  any transfers at all, they should not  be<br \/>\n\t      beyond  the  language area of  the  person  so<br \/>\n\t      transferred.   We further direct that even  in<br \/>\n\t      the  case\t of  workmen not  belonging  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      subordinate  staff, as far as  possible  there<br \/>\n\t      should be no transfer outside the State or the<br \/>\n\t      language areas in which the employee has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      serving except, of course, with his consent.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It is not disputed that these directions were binding on the<br \/>\nappellant-bank\tnor  is\t it disputed before  us\t that  these<br \/>\ndirections  amounted  to  &#8220;standing  orders&#8221;  applicable  to<br \/>\nBank&#8217;s\tworkmen\t within\t the meaning of s.  33\t(2)  of\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act.  It cannot also be doubted that the<br \/>\nresult of the transfer would be a material alteration in the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s conditions of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>Two  contentions  are  urged before us\tin  support  of\t the<br \/>\nappeal.\t The first is that the Labour Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">272<\/span><br \/>\nerred  in  thinking that the direction in the  Sastry  Award<br \/>\nabsolutely prohibited the Bank from transferring workmen not<br \/>\nbelonging to the subordinate staff outside the State or\t the<br \/>\nlanguage area in which the employee had been serving  except<br \/>\nwith  his consent.  On a proper construction, it was  urged,<br \/>\nthe direction only required the bank to refrain from  making<br \/>\nsuch  transfers as far as possible and did not\tprevent\t the<br \/>\nbank  from making such transfers where it was  really  found<br \/>\nnecessary  in bank&#8217;s interests.\t The second  contention\t was<br \/>\nthat when the bank claimed to have made the transfer in\t the<br \/>\ninterests  of its business and was found to have acted\tbona<br \/>\nfide,  it  should have been held that the direction  in\t the<br \/>\nSastry Award had not been contravened.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  our opinion, there is considerable force in\t both  these<br \/>\ncontentions.   It  will\t be  noticed  that  in\tmaking\t the<br \/>\ndirections  as\tregards the transfer of workmen\t the  Sastry<br \/>\nAward  drew a distinction between workmen belonging  to\t the<br \/>\nsubordinate  staff  and others.\t As regards members  of\t the<br \/>\nsubordinate staff the direction was to the effect that there<br \/>\nshould\tbe  no transfers ordinarily and there  was  absolute<br \/>\nprohibition  against transfers beyond the language  area  of<br \/>\nthe  persons  concerned.   The words used  for\tthe  purpose<br \/>\nare  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\t&#8220;if  there are any transfers  at  all,\tthey<br \/>\nshould\tnot  be beyond the language area of  the  person  so<br \/>\ntransferred.&#8221; As regards these workmen the award did not say<br \/>\nthat  &#8220;as far as possible transfer should not be beyond\t the<br \/>\nlanguage  area of the person so transferred.&#8221; It is easy  to<br \/>\nsee that here the prohibition was absolute.  When they go on<br \/>\nto  consider  the  case\t of workmen  not  belonging  to\t the<br \/>\nsubordinate  staff, the member of the Tribunal\thowever\t use<br \/>\nmarkedly  different language and preface the direction\twith<br \/>\nthe words &#8220;there should be no transfer outside the State  or<br \/>\nthe  language area in which he is serving except of  course,<br \/>\nwith his consent&#8221; by the words &#8220;as far as possible&#8221;.  It  is<br \/>\nnot possible to consider this direction as amounting<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 273<\/span><br \/>\nto absolute prohibition without ignoring, the words &#8220;as\t far<br \/>\nas possible.  It is clear that these words were deliberately<br \/>\nused  to leave it to the banks to decide on a  consideration<br \/>\nof  the\t necessities  of its business  interests  whether  a<br \/>\ntransfer of a workman not belonging to the subordinate staff<br \/>\noutside the State or the language area in which he had\tbeen<br \/>\nserving\t could be avoided or not, and directing\t that  where<br \/>\npossible it should be avoided.\tWe are satisfied the  Labour<br \/>\nCourt  was  in error in holding that transfers\toutside\t the<br \/>\nState or the language area can be made only with the consent<br \/>\nof  the\t employees.   What that clause means  is  that\twith<br \/>\nconsent such transfers can of course be made, otherwise they<br \/>\nshould be avoided as far as possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>This brings us to, the question whether in the present\tcase<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tcontravened the direction in  the  award  in<br \/>\ntransferring the respondent outside the Maharashtra State in<br \/>\nwhich  he was serving and also outside the language area  in<br \/>\nwhich  he had been serving.  It is necessary to remember  in<br \/>\nthis connection that a bank which has branches in  different<br \/>\nparts  of the country has to distribute its  total  manpower<br \/>\nbetween\t these\tdifferent branches in  accordance  with\t the<br \/>\nneeds  of  these branches and with an eye  to  its  business<br \/>\ninterests.  To attain the best results it becomes  necessary<br \/>\nto  transfer workmen from one branch to another.   The\tbest<br \/>\ninterests of the bank may require at times that the transfer<br \/>\nshould\tbe  made outside the State or the language  area  in<br \/>\nwhich  a particular workman had formerly been employed.\t  We<br \/>\nhave  found above that the right of the bank  to  distribute<br \/>\nits  workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff  to\t the<br \/>\nbest  advantage,  even\tthough this  may  involve  transfers<br \/>\noutside the State or the language area in which a particular<br \/>\nworkman had been serving, was left unimpaired by the  Sastry<br \/>\nAward,\texcept\tthat such transfers have to be\tavoided,  if<br \/>\nthey can be avoided without sacrificing the interests of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">274<\/span><br \/>\nbank.  The management of the bank is in the best position to<br \/>\njudge  how  to\tdistribute  its\t man-power  and\t whether   a<br \/>\nparticular  transfer  can  be avoided or  not.\t It  is\t not<br \/>\npossible  for industrial tribunals to have before  them\t all<br \/>\nthe  materials which are relevant for this purpose and\teven<br \/>\nif  these  could be made available the tribunals are  by  no<br \/>\nmeans suited for making decisions in matters of this nature.<br \/>\nThat  is  why it would ordinarily be proper  for  industrial<br \/>\nadjudication  to  accept as correct any\t submission  by\t the<br \/>\nmanagement  of the bank that an impugned transfer  has\tbeen<br \/>\nmade  only  because  it\t was  found  unavoidable.   The\t one<br \/>\nexception  to  this statement is where there  is  reason  to<br \/>\nbelieve\t that  the management of the bank  resorted  to\t the<br \/>\ntransfer  mala fide, by way of victimization, unfair  labour<br \/>\npractice  or some other ulterior motive, not connected\twith<br \/>\nthe business interests of the bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t present  case the Labour  Court  has  rejected\t the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s challenge to the bona fides of the\t management.<br \/>\nIt  has held that there is no evidence whatever\t to  support<br \/>\nthe complainant&#8217;s allegation that he was transferred because<br \/>\nhe  joined the Union and that the management had  adopted  a<br \/>\nparticular policy towards the workmen of the Union.  We\t can<br \/>\nfind  nothing that would justify us in interfering with\t the<br \/>\nLabour Court&#8217;s finding that these allegations have not\tbeen<br \/>\nproved.\t It is true that the Labour Court has in considering<br \/>\nthe question whether the conditions of his service had\tbeen<br \/>\naltered observed that the transfer seems to be very  unfair&#8221;<br \/>\nto the employ) cc.  What it obviously means by this is\tthat<br \/>\nthis  transfer will work harshly on the employee.  That\t may<br \/>\nindeed\tbe true.  But that does not amount to a\t finding  of<br \/>\nunfair\tlabour practice.  In these circumstances the  Labour<br \/>\nCourt  was not justified in thinking that  the\trespondent&#8217;s<br \/>\ntransfer  to  Trichur could have been  avoided\twithout\t any<br \/>\ninjury to the bank&#8217;s interests.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 275<\/span><\/p>\n<p>We  have  therefore come to the conclusion that\t the  Labour<br \/>\nCourt has erred in holding that the transfer was not made in<br \/>\naccordance with the &#8220;standing orders&#8221; regarding transfers as<br \/>\ncontained in the Sastry Award.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order  of\t the<br \/>\nLabour\tCourt  and order that the  respondent&#8217;s\t application<br \/>\nunder  s.33A  be  rejected.  There will be no  order  as  to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963 PETITIONER: CANARA BANKING CORPORATION LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: U. VITTAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/04\/1963 BENCH: ACT: Industrial Dispute-Transfer of a Bank employee not belonging to subordinate staff-Application of Sastry Award- No absolute prohibition-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 33A. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-31T22:45:23+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-31T22:45:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963\"},\"wordCount\":1911,\"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\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963\",\"name\":\"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-31T22:45:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963\"}]},{\"@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":"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-31T22:45:23+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963","datePublished":"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-31T22:45:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963"},"wordCount":1911,"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\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963","name":"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-31T22:45:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/canara-banking-corporation-ltd-vs-u-vittal-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Canara Banking Corporation Ltd vs U. Vittal on 22 April, 1963"}]},{"@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\/3844","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=3844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3844\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}