Authority: Orissa High Court, Cuttack (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Order Date: 06 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Axis Bank Ltd and its personnel (Petitioners No.1‑4) filed CMP No.929 of 2026 under Article 227 challenging an ad‑interim order dated 08‑05‑2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak, which restrained the bank from removing Brajakishore Mishra, its Cluster Head (Vice President) and Branch Manager.
  • Opposite Party: Brajakishore Mishra, employed for about two decades, alleged that on 29‑04‑2026 he was pressured to resign and threatened with an adverse employee performance ranking; he raised grievances via emails on 30‑04‑2026 and 01‑05‑2026 which were allegedly unanswered.
  • The lower court, on 08‑05‑2026, issued an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC restraining removal of Mishra pending his appearance; on 18‑05‑2026 the order was extended pending disposal of I.A. No.207 of 2026.
  • Petitioners' arguments: The suit seeking injunction is barred under Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 41(e) thereof; a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable; the lower court failed to record reasons required by the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
  • Opposite Party's arguments: The order was reasoned, considering his long service, age, and imminent threat of removal; equity favored maintaining his position; he had raised grievances internally without relief.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held the lower court’s order lacked the mandatory reasons and that the CMP is maintainable but should not substitute the ordinary appeal; it directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding Mishra’s post and service until the Civil Judge decides I.A. No.207 of 2026.
  • Axis Bank is ordered to appear before the lower court within one week with a certified copy of this order; the lower court shall then decide the IA expeditiously, without being influenced by this judgment.
  • The bank may, in the ordinary course of administrative exigency, alter Mishra’s posting, subject to service conditions, without prejudice to the status‑quo order.
  • The CMP application is dismissed and each party bears its own costs.

Topics: Employment Law, Banking, Judicial Review