Manpreet Singh vs. Bank Of Baroda

Facts

The appellant, Manpreet Sain, filed a writ petition challenging the Bank of Baroda's action of recovering Rs. 20 Lakh from her. The appellant had executed a bond for Rs. 20 Lakh, undertaking to serve the bank for at least three years upon return from overseas duty. She returned from overseas duty but left the job before completing the three-year tenure, leading the bank to enforce the bond. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding a breach of the undertaking and no illegality in the bank's recovery action. The appellant argued that the bank's policy limited recovery to Rs. 10 Lakh, but the bond was executed for Rs. 20 Lakh without demur. The learned Single Judge found this to be a violation of the principle of approbation and reprobation.

Held

The Court held that there was no illegality on facts or in law with respect to the action of the respondent-bank in recovering the amount from the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant had executed the bond for Rs. 20 Lakh voluntarily and without demur, and therefore, she could not challenge the bond amount on the pretext of a contrary policy. The learned Single Judge had correctly found this to be a violation of the principle of approbation and reprobation. Regarding the issue of GST, the Court stated that if this argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge and not dealt with, the appellant's appropriate remedy would be to file a review application before the learned Single Judge. The Court found no good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, thereby upholding the respondent-bank's action of recovering Rs. 20 Lakh from the appellant for breach of an undertaking given in a bond. 2. Whether the demand of GST on the amount of the bond of Rs. 20 Lakh was unauthorized and, if so, whether this aspect was adequately dealt with by the learned Single Judge. Contentions of the Petitioner/Appellant: - The appellant contended that the bank's policy stipulated a maximum recovery of Rs. 10 Lakh, and therefore, the demand for Rs. 20 Lakh was contrary to policy. - The appellant also raised the issue of unauthorized demand of GST on the Rs. 20 Lakh bond amount, which they argued was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge. Contentions of the Respondent/State (Bank of Baroda): The respondent-bank argued that the appellant voluntarily executed the bond for Rs. 20 Lakh without demur, and having done so, she could not later challenge the bond amount based on a contrary policy. The bank also contended that the appellant breached the undertaking by leaving the job before completing the stipulated service period.