Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Legal Proceedings and References: The case involving UCO Bank and M B Motwani has been referenced in multiple judicial decisions, notably in the Supreme Court and High Court rulings. The most pertinent reference is UCO Bank and others v. M.B. Motwani (dead) through LRs, which is cited as SCC 109, 2007 ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2203"]. This case clarifies that departmental proceedings are initiated only upon issuance of a charge sheet, not merely a show-cause notice, and emphasizes the importance of timely initiation to avoid inordinate delays ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2203"].
Judicial Jurisdiction and Refereed Court: The case is refereed in the Supreme Court of India, as evidenced by the citation of SCC (Supreme Court Cases) and the mention of AIR (All India Reporter). The Supreme Court's decision in 2023 (AIR 5628) discusses the legal position regarding departmental proceedings and the procedural requirements for initiating disciplinary actions ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2203"].
Nature of the Dispute: The case primarily revolves around disciplinary actions, procedural delays, and the legality of departmental inquiries against UCO Bank employees, including issues related to misconduct, procedural lapses, and the validity of penalties imposed ["2024 0 Supreme(HP) 85"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1593"].
Additional References: Several judgments involving UCO Bank, including recovery cases, property disputes, and departmental disciplinary proceedings, are also cited, but the central case of UCO Bank Vs M B Motwani is distinctly referenced in the context of legal proceedings before the Supreme Court ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2203"].
The Uco Bank Vs M B Motwani case is refereed before the Supreme Court of India. The case's legal significance lies in its clarification of procedural aspects of departmental inquiries and the importance of timely initiation of disciplinary proceedings, establishing legal precedents for similar cases involving bank employees and departmental misconduct ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2203"].
The case's references in Supreme Court reports and AIR citations confirm its status as a Supreme Court case rather than a lower court or tribunal matter**.
References:
In the realm of banking and service law disputes in India, cases involving major public sector banks like often set important precedents. One such query that frequently arises among legal researchers, bank employees, and litigators is: Vs m B Motwani Case i Want Know where this Case is Refereed. This question seeks clarity on the judicial forum where the case vs M.B. Motwani was heard or referenced. While exact details may require consulting official records, available judicial documents point primarily to the as a key referring authority, with additional mentions in . This post breaks down the references, integrates related precedents, and provides context for better understanding—note: this is general information, not specific legal advice.
The case vs M.B. Motwani appears in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, specifically cited as (2023) SCC Online SC 13272024 8 Supreme 648. This reference emerges in discussions on against bank employees . The judgment states: ii) Vs. M.B. Motwani, (2023) SCC Online SC 1327 2024 8 Supreme 648, linking it to service conditions under banking regulations.
Typically, such cases involve issues like penalties, , and continuance of after retirement. The Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed 's matters, making it a central hub for these references. For instance, an earlier landmark is and Anr. vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported in (2008) 5 SCC 2572022 0 Supreme(Cal) 355 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2679, where the Court reviewed service regulations and disciplinary actions 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 355.
Another pivotal Supreme Court decision is 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 1109, which delves into 's service regulations and legal principles applicable to employee disputes.
The stands out as the foremost judicial body referencing cases, including vs M.B. Motwani. In (2023) SCC Online SC 1327, the case is invoked alongside to analyze provisions governing employee service post-retirement 2024 8 Supreme 648. The Court notes: Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, we may briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the statutes governing the service condition of the respondent 2024 8 Supreme 648.
Key themes include:- No initiation of : Proceedings must start before retirement, with allowing continuation 2024 8 Supreme 648.- Penalty implications: Reversal of High Court decisions where proceedings lacked jurisdiction after service extension expired 2024 8 Supreme 648.
In vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, the Court clarified: would be deemed to be in service although he has reached his age of superannuation – Departmental proceeding is not initiated merely by issuance of a – It is initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued 2024 8 Supreme 648 2020 4 Supreme 26. This precedent directly influences Motwani-related discussions.
While the Supreme Court dominates, have also handled matters, potentially contextualizing vs M.B. Motwani:
These illustrate 's widespread litigation across jurisdictions, often on recovery, compliance, and service issues.
cases frequently intersect with gratuity, pension, and misconduct themes. For example:
Gratuity Withholding: In a case under , the Supreme Court upheld withholding during pending proceedings if initiated pre-superannuation. Employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of 2020 4 Supreme 26. aligns with Section 4(6) 2020 4 Supreme 26.
Pension Regulations: examined pension schemes post-settlement 2019 0 Supreme(Cal) 708.
Contempt and Compliance: A contempt case highlighted bank's non-compliance with will execution, leading to notices against the Chief Manager. The absence of a legal mandate for probating the will and the wilful disobedience to court directions by the bank were the central legal points 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5494.
Subsidy and Fraud: Gauhati matters involved unauthorized retention of subsidies, with probes 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 695.
: Consumer disputes over document handling
.
These sources enrich the landscape, showing 's cases span service law, recovery, and compliance.
For precise details, always verify with official records or seek professional legal counsel. This analysis draws from documented references to aid research.
#UCOBankCase #SupremeCourtIndia #BankingLaw
UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. ... Verma has thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which is violation of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended. ... Mr D S Verma has thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank officer which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as amended.” 4. ... The enquiry otherwise is ....
Ld. counsel for the Respondent bank also comes forward to submit that he has now the instructions to state that the case of the petition has been processed and sanctioned to give effect to the subject Will by the AGM and Branch Head of the UCO Bank. ... The UCO Bank has also filed a short reply through Sh. Akshay Kumar, S/o Sh. ... The petitioner in the writ/main matter assailed the decision of the letter dated 20.10.2018 of the UCO Bank canvassing t....
The Enforcement Directorate has further averred that the respondent UCO Bank had also informed that no new case had been filed by them. ... By the letter dated 30.03.2022, the CBI informed that the CBI case relating to Bank fraud of UCO Bank was pending at the trial stage before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI [Addl. Court no. 2], Guwahati. ... RC 13[A]/2007-GWH submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC on 31.12.2008 finding a prima facie c....
GUWAHATI MAIN BRANCH IS UCO BANK, HB ROAD FANCY BAZAAR, GUWAHATI 781001 REP. ... 2: THE CHIEF MANAGER UCO BANK ADDRESS- H.B. ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI PIN- 781001 DIST. ... S SAMARIA Linked Case : WP(C)/164/2025 UCO BANK AND ANR A BANKING COMPANY AND CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT 1971 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 10 BTM SARANI BRABOURNE ROAD KOLKATA-1 DOING ITS BANKING BUSINESS ... BY ITS AUTHORISED CHIEF....
GUWAHATI MAIN BRANCH IS UCO BANK, HB ROAD FANCY BAZAAR, GUWAHATI 781001 REP. ... 2: THE CHIEF MANAGER UCO BANK ADDRESS- H.B. ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI PIN- 781001 DIST. ... S SAMARIA Linked Case : WP(C)/164/2025 UCO BANK AND ANR A BANKING COMPANY AND CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT 1971 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 10 BTM SARANI BRABOURNE ROAD KOLKATA-1 DOING ITS BANKING BUSINESS ... BY ITS AUTHORISED CHIEF....
no. 158/2014 titled as UCO Bank V/s Ajay Sadawat may kindly be quashed and set aside. ... Consequently, the order dated 20.04.2025 (Annex.18) and the sale proclamation dated 09.06.2025 (Annex.19) issued by the Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Jaipur, in Recovery Case No.158/2014 titled UCO Bank vs. Ajay Sadawat are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. ... It is further directed that the proceedings in Recovery Case No.158/2014 titled UCO Bank vs. Ajay Sadawat p....
The State of West Bengal & Ors.) be recalled and WPA No.5033 of 2025 (UCO Bank v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) be restored to the file of this Hon’ble Court with leave being granted to the petitioner to intervene in WPA No.5033 of 2025 (UCO Bank v. ... Bank V. ... Bank v. ... Bank v. ... Bank v.
It is not disputed by the parties that the property in question was under mortgage to the UCO Bank. ... The Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, however, expressed his helplessness to conform the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner, even the payment of the whole consideration amount. ... sale as invited by the authorised officer, UCO Bank, and placed the bid of Rs. 70,00,000/- to purchase a mortgaged property measuring an area 56.97 Cottahs, comprising CSR-8, Khatian No. 396....
THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK, ASSET MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO.13/22, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 2. M/S. ... Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has cleared the entire amount in the year 2014 itself and in fact it is the case that the excess amount is recovered by the bank. ... b) Issue a writ or order or direction of the nature of a mandamus to the respondent No.1 UCO bank to release the schedule property with original title deeds as entire dues of the #HL....
The complainants there upon contacted Uco Bank to get the documents back, to raise the loan amount from another bank. However, he came to know that the opponent no.1 has forcefully taken back those documents. ... In fact, it is admitted that the opponent no.1 has made direct correspondence to Uco Bank asking the Uco Bank to disburse the amount of loan sanctioned against the flat no.205. Those letters are at page no.73 and 78. ... Apart fr....
(ii) UCO Bank Vs. M.B. Motwani, (2023) SCC Online SC 1327, (i) UCO Bank Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694; and 14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, we may briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the statutes governing the service condition of the respondent.
Thus, the aforesaid decision of this Court in UCO Bank vs. In the instant case, Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules holds the field and is binding, in the absence of any statutory interdiction made by any other provision regarding continuance of the inquiry and for taking it to a logical end in terms of the deemed continuation of the employee in service. Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) in Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' Service Regulations, 1979, but this Court held that the aforesaid regulation could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceedings had been ....
The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition was of the view that a harmonious construction should be made between the nature of punishment and the right of an employee who has been visited with a punishment of removal with superannuation benefits with that of Rule 22(I)(c) of the Pension Rules. Sanwar Mal reported in (2004) 4 SCC 412 examined the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, which was arrived at on the basis of a settlement between the Bank Authority and its employees and described the nature of pension scheme of the Bank as hereunder:- The Sup....
To the same effect are the observations of Madras High Court in the case of Padmanabhan A. vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, 2009-III-LLJ-414(Mad). Even the Allahabad High Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. vs. Himangshu Bikash Sarkar, (2006) 2 CALLT 89(HC) has also held that conviction by a criminal court of competent jurisdiction is not required for the purpose of forfeiting gratuity under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of subsection (6) of Section 4 of the Act. Regional Labour Commissioner, 2008-III-LLJ-54(All) has held the observation of the Controlling Authority....
N. Subbarayudu and others; (iii) (2004) 4 SCC 412, in case of UCO Bank and others vs. Sanwar Mal; and (iv) Judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10532 of 1996, dated 16.09.1999. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Bank and has contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and there is nothing wrong with the impugned Regulation No. 33, either in substance or in the cut-off date prescribed therein. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and another; (ii) (2008) 14 SCC 702, in case of Governm....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
