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 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

State Bank Of India vs Navin Kumar Sinha on 16 October, 2020

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy

     ITEM NO.3                   Court 8 (Video Conferencing)                       SECTION XVII

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F               I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                           No(s).   11413/2020

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-02-2020
     in LPA No. 505/2016 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
     Ranchi)

     STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.                                                  Petitioner(s)

                                                      VERSUS

     NAVIN KUMAR SINHA                                                           Respondent(s)

     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and
     IA No. 95449/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

     Date : 16-10-2020 This matter was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY


     For Petitioner(s)                Mr.   P.S.Patwalia,Sr.Adv.
                                      Mr.   Sanjay Kapur, AOR
                                      Mr.   V.M.Kanna,Adv.
                                      Ms.   Megha Karnwal,Adv.
                                      Mr.   Sambit Panja,Adv.

     For Respondent(s)


                         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                               O R D E R

Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the State Bank of India Officers Rules, Signature Not Verified 1992, more specifically Rule 19(3), to contend that the Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2020.10.17 13:25:03 IST Reason: disciplinary proceedings at the discretion of the Managing Director are liable to be continued and 1 concluded as if the officer continues to be in service even after he attains the age of superannuation. It is his submission that this Rule has not been adverted to in the impugned order and only Rule 91 has been referred to. He further submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of moving funds from one account to the other and giving loans to the son and other family members which in turn caused loss to the bank as those accounts became N.P.A. Issue notice.

In the meantime, the contempt proceedings stated to be initiated against the petitioner before the High Court be deferred.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL)                           (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
  AR-CUM-PS                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                              2