Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 13]

Bombay High Court

Smt. Nilima Raju Khapekar vs The Executive Director, Bank Of Baroda, ... on 13 October, 2021

Author: Anil S.Kilor

Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor

                                                                                                     5-wp 3907-21.odt
                                                           1/2



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                        CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3907                              OF        2021

                                            Nilima Raju Khapekar
                                                     -Vs-
                                    The Executive Director, Bank of Baroda

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                   Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mr.K.J.Khanorkar, counsel for the petitioner.


                                               CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
                                                       ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.
                                                DATE             : 13.10.2021.

                                  1.        Heard.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons stated by the respondent- Bank for refusing compassionate appointment to the petitioner is not based upon any ascertainment of the factual position in which the petitioner is.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the opinion of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner, being not indigent, is not eligible for getting compassionate appointment but, the fact is that the petitioner is really indigent and finding it very difficult to make both ends meet. It is also submitted that a proper inquiry for ascertaining the financial position of the petitioner ought to have been made by the respondent Bank but the same, as per the knowledge of the petitioner, has not been done by the respondent Bank.

Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 08:48:24 ::: 5-wp 3907-21.odt 2/2

4. Issue notice for final disposal at admission stage to the respondents, returnable after four weeks.

(ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J) Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 08:48:24 :::