The Bank went in second appeal.
On an appeal being carried, the lower appellate companyrt reversed the findings of the trial Judge, and came to hold that the plaintiff was a manager on the date of the termination, and therefore, the order of termination number having been passed with the previous approval of the Reserve Bank of India, the order of termination is vitiated.
The lower appellate companyrt therefore allowed the plaintiffs appeal and decreed the suit.
It transpires that the Laxmi Commercial Bank had been merged number with the Canara Bank of India.
The learned trial Judge, framed several Issues, and came to hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish that his order of appointment in the Bank was with the previous approval of the Reserve Bank of India.
The Bank in the written statement took a positive stand that the order of termination of the plaintiff does number require the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India in terms of Section 35B b of the Banking Regulation Act, inasmuch as the plaintiff was number a manager.
The services being terminated, he filed the suit.
The plaintiff is the appellant against the judgment of the High Court in second appeal.
B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
The plaintiff had been appointed as an officer in a private Bank, Laxmi Commercial Bank.
