NANDAKUMAR K V Vs. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this second appeal brought from the judgment and decree of learned 6th Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in AS No. 48 of 2009 came up for admission, respondents who had filed a caveat entered appearance through counsel. The first appeal arose from judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam in OS No. 369 of 2007. The issue involved is whether departmental enquiry initiated by respondent No. 1 against the appellant should be injuncted till trial of the criminal case against him involving one of the incidents referred to in the memo of charges is over. Though learned counsel for respondents submitted that no question of law and much less any substantial questions of law is involved in the second appeal, after hearing both sides, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Short facts are necessary for a decision of the above substantial question of law are:

(3.) Though, maintainability of the suit was challenged by respondents in the Trial Court and issue No. 1 was raised regarding that, no serious argument was advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1 on that issue in the Courts below and the suit has been found to be maintainable. No contention is advanced on behalf of respondents that the relief prayed for does not come within the four corners of S.38 of the Specific Relief Act which deals with the grant of perpetual injunction to prevent breach of an obligation. But it is apposite to consider whether relief of the nature sought for is allowable. S.38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') deals with the grant of perpetual injunction and sub-section (1) which is relevant here says: