|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Bank of Baroda, Uttar Pradesh vs (1) Parul Agarwal; (2) Meenakshi Garg; (3) Shri Ashutosh Agarwal; (4) Mithilesh Agwaral
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 01 Sep 2010]
Consumer Protection - Banking & Finance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Respondents deposited Rs. 1.00 lakh with the Banaras State Bank Ltd. (BSBL), in Fixed Deposit for 3 years - Thereafter, BSBL was merged with Bank of Baroda (Petitioner) and neither of the Banks gave any notice about the merger - On maturity of their FDRs, Respondents were paid Rs.93,841/- and Rs.1,176,986/- respectively, by the Petitioner instead of Rs.1,34,490/- assured to them on maturity of their FDRs - Thus, the Petitioner arbitrarily deducted Rs.15,000/- from the first FDR and Rs.16,504/- from the second FDR - Respondents filed complaint before District Forum who directed Petitioner to pay Rs. 86,619/- with 4% interest and also Rs.1000/- as cost and Rs. 31,971/- with 4% interest and also Rs.1000/- as cost respectively for their two Deposits - State Commission held that it is not fair that depositors should lose their hard earned money because of an MOU that stipulates the liability to the extent of 85.85% and upheld the order of the District Forum - Hence, present petition - Whether order of the District Forum and State Commission could be upheld? - Held, amalgamation of BSBL with the Petitioner Bank became necessary because of the precarious financial condition of BSBL and in such cases unless there is an intervention by the Government, the depositors would in all probability have lost all their hard earned money which had been deposited in that Bank - BSBL underwent this financial crisis because they did not adhere to the prudential norms and rules laid down by the Regulator i.e. Reserve Bank of India - Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the consequences which resulted from the malfunctioning of BSBL - Petitioner Bank acted in accordance with the Scheme formulated by the Government of India under a statute and after due notification which was in public interest and specifically in the interest of its depositors to ensure minimum loss of money to them -Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner - Impugned orders of District Forum and State Commission set aside - Petition allowed.
|
N. Henry vs (1) Vijaya Kumar; (2) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Public Prosecutor
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2010]
Banking & Finance - Practice & Procedure - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, s. 138 - Conditional stay order - Justifiability - Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence u/s. 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- - Petitioner filed an appeal and a stay application before the Sessions Court for suspending the sentence till the disposal of appeal - Sessions Court allowed the stay application on the condition that petitioner should deposit 50% of the fine amount - Hence the present petition for modifying the conditional order of Sessions Court - Whether Sessions Court order warrant any modification - Held, present litigation started as Calendar Case in 1991, however, judgment was passed only on 2010 after a lapse of 11 years, in such circumstances, the petitioner came forward with the present application to modify the condition imposed by the Sessions Court to suspend his sentence - Therefore, condition made in impugned Sessions Court order is modified and petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- instead of 50% of fine amount - Petition disposed of.
|
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union of India and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Aug 2010]
Banking & Finance - Constitution - Constitution of India, art. 32 - Non Performing Assets (NPAs) of nationalised Banks - Failure to recover bad debts - Public Interest Litigation - Petitioner, a Society engaged in taking up various common problems of the people for redressal, alleged that non-recovery of huge amount of NPAs had resulted in substantial funds of banks not being available for development of the country's economy and that, in turn, had affected the citizens - Petitioner contended that the steps taken by the 1st respondent/Union Government to recover the NPAs had not yielded positive results and the Finance Ministry was reported to have admitted that 27 nationalised banks had written off a staggering amount of crores of rupees as bad debts - Held, petitioner did not make out a case that for enforcement of any right guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution, writs or directions were required to be issued by SC u/art. 32 of the Constitution - Union Government had already taken some administrative measures such as setting up of 'Serious Fraud Investigation Office' (SFIO) and legislative measures such as the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 etc. - Respondents affirmed in its affidavit that they would try to reduce the number and amount of NPAs and to detect and check bank frauds in future - Further, whether legislative and administrative measures taken by the 1st respondent are effective or not, is not for the Court but for the 1st respondent and Parliament to consider because reduction and control of NPAs are not within the domain of judiciary but within the domain of the Executive and Legislature under the Constitution of India - Union Government, however, must ensure that SFIO is effective in detecting and preventing bank frauds by influential people - Further, Central Government has constituted a Committee of Experts and such Committee will consider the suggestion to make the SFIO (or any similar body) a statutory authority having sufficient powers and having the required autonomy to be able to effectively deal with the problems of bank frauds and NPAs - Petition disposed of.
|
Sadanand Yadav vs State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Araria and others
[PATNA HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2010]
|
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs J. B. Diamonds Limited
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2010]
Corporate - Banking & Finance - FEMA - Indian Contract Act, 1872, s. 23 - The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, ss. 45U(a) and 45V - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, s. 2(c), 10(1) - Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Exchange Derivative Contracts) Regulations, 2000, regns. 2, 4, sch. I - Petitioner granted various facilities to respondent-company including the revolving facility to enable the respondent to hedge foreign currency exposure to the extent of Rs.7,50,00,000 - Respondent-company entered into two forward contract transactions with Petitioner - Respondent-company confirmed to petitioner that it was liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,40,57,265 and a sum of Rs. Rs.1,03,50,000 respectively and requested 90 days to repay the dues with interest at 8% in installments - Petitioner stated that interest at 13% would be charged on the overdue amount and demanded the amount - Respondent-company admitted its liability and stated that it would soon come out of it temporary financial difficulties and that it was making an all-out effort to honour petitioner's dues - Statutory notice was issued by petitioners to the respondent-company - Petition for winding up filed by the petitioners against respondent-company - (A) Whether transactions between the petitioner and respondent-company illegal? - Held, transactions entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-company were permissible in law and were legal, valid and binding on the parties - Petitioner was an authorized dealer within the meaning of ss. 2(c) and 10(1) of the FEMA and the transactions entered into by the respondent are those for which the sale and/or purchase of foreign exchange is permitted under the FEMA; in the statement of disclosure the respondent-company stated that it had the legal capacity to enter into derivative transactions by the regulations and laws applicable to this country and agreed to undertake only such derivative transactions as are permitted by the laws of India by which it is governed including the RBI guidelines - (B) Whether respondent-company was liable to be wound up on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts? - Held, this is not a fit case to even admit the petition without first giving the respondent-company an opportunity of making payment in a phased manner firstly, respondent-company employs about 2500 people which is certainly an important consideration especially where it was found that the company was going through a temporary financial crisis and there is a possibility of it overcoming the same secondly the assessment note referring to the other 12 banks/financial institutions certainly establishes that the respondent-company was going through a severe financial crisis, however, it also indicates that there was a possibility of it overcoming the same; the fact that a consortium of 13 prominent banks/financial institutions have sanctioned a package prima-facie supports the same; the assessment note merely indicates that that though the respondent-company was at present unable to pay all its dues it will be able to do so shortly and if there was a possibility of the respondent-company overcoming the financial difficulties public interest demands that it ought to be afforded an opportunity of doing so - Order accordingly.
|
Praveen Kashyap @ Praveen Kumar and another vs Branch Manager State Bank of India and others
[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2010]
|
Saravanan vs S. N. Sundaram
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Aug 2010]
Banking & Finance - Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, s. 138 - Error in statutory notice - Proceedings u/s. 138 of the Act - Sustainability - Petitioner borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from respondent and issued a cheque for the same - Petitioner failed to repay the amount, hence, respondent submitted the cheque - Cheque was returned as 'funds insufficient' - Respondent issued statutory notice to petitioner demanding the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-, however, respondent, subsequently, issued a re-joinder notice stating that there was typographical mistake in mentioning the amount - Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner u/s. 138 of the Act and Trial Court took cognizance of the offence - Hence the present petition by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings on the file of Trial Court - Whether the mentioning of Rs.15,00,000/- in the statutory notice instead of Rs.1,50,000/- will vitiate the entire proceedings even though a rejoinder notice has been issued by the respondent stating that the same is a typographical error - Held, petitioner has sent a reply only after the receipt of rejoinder notice from the respondent - Even though in the statutory notice, the respondent has mentioned the amount wrongly, that has been properly explained in the rejoinder notice - Further, respondent filed the complaint before the Trial Court within stipulated time u/s. 138 of the Act - No reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
|
Indian Bank vs Blue Jaggers Estates Limited and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 09 Aug 2010]
Banking & Finance - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, s. 19 - Appellant-Bank sanctioned loan to a partnership firm - Respondent No.1 took over the assets and liabilities of said firm - Since the respondents failed to clear the outstanding dues, appellant filed an application u/s. 19 of the DRT Act for recovery which is still pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal - Meanwhile, parties signed Joint Memo of Compromise whereby the appellant agreed to accept an amount of Rs.153.50 lakhs towards full and final settlement of its claim as against the outstanding dues of Rs.661.30 lakhs - Parties also agreed that in case of non-compliance of any of the conditions, O.A. No. 1098 of 1998 shall stand decreed - Although, the respondents did not pay full amount in terms of compromise and as a result of that, the appellant acquired the right to recover all the dues, it signed another compromise with the respondents who undertook to pay the balance amount - Meanwhile, appellant issued two notices u/ss. 13(2) of the Act - Thereafter, Appellant issued notice u/s. 13(4) of the Act for taking possession of the mortgaged properties - Respondents filed an application u/s. 17 of the Act for quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant u/s. 13 of the Act - Application was dismissed and it was held that the appellant had taken action under the Act because the respondent did not pay the outstanding dues - Tribunal took cognizance of the compromise deeds signed by the parties and observed that the appellant was entitled to recover the outstanding dues because the borrower failed to fulfil its commitment in accordance with the terms of compromise - On appeal, Appellate Tribunal granted interim stay subject to the condition of deposit of Rs.3 crores - Respondents filed Writ Petition for an absolute and unconditional stay of the recovery proceedings, which was dismissed - Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed by SC - Since the respondents did not comply with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the authorised officer of the appellant auctioned some of the mortgaged properties for which bids of Rs.5 crores were received - Thereafter, respondents filed three applications before the Appellate Tribunal for waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit - While dealing with those applications, the Appellate Tribunal suo motu took cognizance of the fact that the notice had been issued to the respondents for recovery of amount required to be deposited in terms of the mandate of second proviso to s. 18(1) and directed them to deposit Rs.4.50 crores - Respondent filed writ petition for quashing said order and another writ Petition for issue of a mandamus to the Tribunal to dispose of application pending with Debts Recovery Tribunal - DB of the HC set aside the second interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and also nullified the earlier conditional interim order by declaring that as a result of sale of the property worth Rs.5 crores, the requirement of deposit of Rs.3 crores stands satisfied - Hence, present appeal - Held, interlocutory conditional order passed by the Appellate Tribunal had become final because the respondents' challenge to that order was negatived by the HC and SC - Therefore, respondents cannot be allowed to indirectly question correctness of that order in the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the HC in the subsequent writ petition - Further, a reading of earlier order passed Appellate Tribunal makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal had recorded a specific finding that the appellant was entitled to claim the entire amount, which was due - Reasons assigned by HC for declaring that the requirement of pre-deposit will be deemed to have been satisfied do not stand scrutiny - Impugned order of the HC set aside insofar as it declares that the direction given by the Appellate Tribunal to the respondents to deposit Rs.3 crores stands complied - Appeals disposed of.
|
Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Jaunpur, through its Branch Manager vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur and another
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 06 Aug 2010]
|
Amita Gas Service and another vs (1) Raman Gupta; (2) Rajesh Modi
[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 05 Aug 2010]
Criminal - Banking & Finance - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss. 200, 202 and 482 - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, ss. 138, 142 and 145 - Petitioners engaged respondent to work at their Gas Service - Respondent was authorised to deal with bank transaction on the behalf of petitioners - On account of various financial irregularities committed by respondent, petitioners removed him from services - As per the petitioners, respondent allegedly obtained their one cheque book containing 25 cheques while being in petitioners' service - On coming to know about missing cheque book, petitioners lodged a complaint in the Bank praying that related cheques not to be accepted for payment and also lodged a report at Police Station - Respondents filed a criminal case u/ss. 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 against the petitioners as the cheques presented in Bank for encashment returned with an endorsement of "stop payment" - Cognizance taken on complaint by the Magistrate and summons issued to petitioners vide impugned order - Petitioners filed instant petition u/s. 482 of CrPC for setting aside the impugned orders - Whether Trial Court erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners only on the basis of affidavit sworn by complainant and by not recording the statement of the complainant and his witnesses u/ss. 200 and 202 of the of CrPC which is mandatory? - Held, no ground for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court in the light of law laid down by the SC in Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 INDLAW SC 4 wherein it was held that the statement on affidavit is admissible and is to be considered as examination-in-chief - Petitions dismissed.
|
Mangi Lal Rustagi S/o Bal Mukund vs (1) Govind Singh and others; (2) Geeta Devi and others
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 04 Aug 2010]
Banking & Finance - Loan Recovery - Attachment - Auction Purchaser - Plaintiff is the auction purchaser of the defendant's property which was auctioned by the bank for recovery of its loan advanced to the defendant - Plaintiff was the advocate also representing the bank so the defendants filed a suit which was dismissed by the execution court and held the auction valid - 1st appeal was decreed in defendant's favour and said auction was cancelled and amount was ordered to be returned to the buyer - Thus 2nd appeal - Whether the auction could be held valid? - Held, as per the present case it cannot be denied that there may be collusion between the bank and plaintiff to deter defendant from its right to enjoy the property as they were well known to each other - Moreover, by the order of the court below a compromise was arrived between the judgement debtor and bank and the amount decided has already been paid by the defendant - Auction price was also too less and it is not right to auction the property in such low value - Thus for these reasons appeal lacks merit - Appeal dismissed.
|
Jagdish alias Jagan vs Jora Singh
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 04 Aug 2010]
|
Chadrawalia Trading Company vs Birla Corporation Limited
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 03 Aug 2010]
Banking & Finance - Recovery - Amount of Subsidy - Plaintiffs appointed defendants as their stockists but after some time they did not receive any payment for their supplies - Recovery suit was filed and was decreed in plaintiff's favour - Defendant filed appeal against said order which was also rejected - Thus present 2nd appeal by defendant - Defendant contends that the amount of subsidy was adjusted as per the contract so plaintiffs were not entitled to get any relief - Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the payment? - Held, yes as per the defendant contention the burden of proof is upon them to show the subsidy amount was not adjusted and they had failed to do the same as there is no documentary proof - Thus 2nd appeal dismissed.
|
K. R. Subbaiah and another vs Indian Bank, Madurai
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Aug 2010]
Banking & Finance - Practice & Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 34 r. 11 - Respondent/Bank sued appellant for recovery of a loan advanced to the appellants - Since appellants were absent in the proceedings, Trial Court passed ex-parte decree against appellants - Execution proceedings were transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) - DRT issued recovery certificate in favour of respondent - Appellant filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - Appellate Tribunal dismissed appellant's appeal on the ground of delay - Appellant filed revision before the HC - HC dismissed the revision - Appellant challenged the HC order before SC and in the meantime, paid off a substantial part of due amount to the respondent - Respondent contended that appellant had to pay an interest of 18% p.a. for the rest of outstanding amount - Whether respondent/Bank is entitled to 18% of interest - Held, as per the final decree of the Trial Court, respondent/Bank was entitled to interest prescribed u/O. 34 r. 11 of the CPC - Although recovery certificate issued by the DRT showed that respondent was entitled to 18% interest, statement submitted by the respondent before the SC showed that the interest until the date of the final decree was payable by the appellants at the rate of 18% p.a. and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. on due amount - Since the respondent had prepared the statement as per their banking records, they cannot contend that there was an error in the statement with regard to the interest - Therefore, recovery certificate issued by the DRT is set aside and direction issued to the appellant to discharge the outstanding amount to respondent within 15 days as per the statement - Appeal disposed of.
|
Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India vs Devi Ispat Limited and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 30 Jul 2010]
Constitution - Banking & Finance - Contract & Commercial - Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 12 and 226 - Maintainability of writ petition - Respondent-Company was banking with the appellant-Bank - Due to various irregularities in the account of the respondent-Company, the appellant-Bank advised the respondent-Company to shift its loan account to some other Bank - Respondent-Company requested appellant-Bank to handover the original title deeds of its factory premises and all the collateral securities held by it as against the respondent-Company to another Nationalized Bank to whom they had transferred their account - As per contract settlement, the Nationalized Bank issued a Banker's cheque of Rs. 15 crores to the respondent-Company which the appellant-Bank had encashed and appropriated in lieu of the outstanding balances lying against the respondent-Company - Thereafter, respondent-Company requested appellant-Bank to return Security documents - Respondent-Company filed writ petition which was allowed and appellant-Bank was directed to release the security documents - Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed - Hence, present appeal - It was submitted that the direction of the Single Judge affirmed by the DB for return of the title deeds deposited by the respondent-Company as a security cannot be a subject-matter of art. 226 of the Constitution - Held, (a) in the contract if there is a clause for arbitration, normally, writ court should not invoke its jurisdiction; (b) the existence of effective alternative remedy provided in the contract itself is a good ground to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction u/art. 226; and (c) if the instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good, public interest, unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably discriminatory and violative of art. 14 of the Constitution in its contractual or statutory obligation, writ petition would be maintainable - However, a legal right must exist and corresponding legal duty on the part of the State and if any action on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, writ courts can exercise their power - In present case, appellant-Bank, being a public sector Bank, discharging public functions is "State" u/art. 12 - In view of the settlement of the dues on the date of filing of the writ petition by arrangement made through another Nationalized Bank and the statement of accounts furnished by the appellant-Bank subsequent to the same is nil outstanding, HC was fully justified in issuing a writ of mandamus for return of its title deeds - Appeal dismissed.
|
Pawan Gupta vs Pritpal Singh Saluja
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 30 Jul 2010]
|
Jagat Castings Company (P) Limited and others vs Union of India and others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 30 Jul 2010]
|
United Bank of India vs Satyawati Tondon and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Jul 2010]
Banking & Finance - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 226 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ss. 13, 14 and 17 - Appellant sanctioned a term loan in favour of respondent No.2 - Respondent No.1 gave guarantee for repayment of the loan and mortgaged her property and executed agreement of guarantee making herself liable for repayment of the loan amount with interest - However, respondent did not repay the amount - Appellant issued notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act requiring them to pay - Thereafter, appellant filed an application u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which was allowed by District Magistrate - Thereafter, the appellant issued notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - Respondent No.1 filed writ petition and prayed that the appellant may be restrained from taking coercive action in pursuance of the notices issued u/s. 13(2) and (4) - Appellant contended that writ petition was liable to be dismissed because an alternative remedy is available to the respondent u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act - HC passed the impugned order restraining the appellant from taking action in furtherance of notice issued u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - Present appeal - Whether HC was justified in restraining the appellant from proceeding u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act against the property of respondent No.1? - Held, in view of law laid down by SC in State Bank of India v. M/s. Indexport Registered and others 1992 INDLAW SC 1185, wherein it was held that the decree-holder bank can execute the decree against the guarantor without proceeding against the principal borrower, HC completely misdirected itself in assuming that the appellant could not have initiated action against respondent No.1 without making efforts for recovery of its dues from the respondent No.2 (borrower) - Further, remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective - HC overlooked the settled law that the HC will ordinarily not entertain a petition u/art. 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person - HC erred by entertaining writ petition of respondent No.1 - Impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed.
|
Mohinderjeet Kaur vs State of Punjab and another
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 26 Jul 2010]
|
Mahesh Kantilal Zaveri vs Union of India others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 26 Jul 2010]
|
Kanoria Jute and Industries Limited and another vs Bank of India and others
[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2010]
Banking & Finance - Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993, s. 22 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 23 r. 3 - Compromise deed - Admittedly parties wanted to settle their dispute on compromise and as such joint petition of compromise signed by parties was filed before Debt Recovery Tribunal - As per compromise applicant-bank was to receive and accept Rs. 200 lacs on OTS amount to be paid in the manner prescribed in compromise deed - It was stated in compromise deed that if settlement amount is not paid or any default is made in payment of monthly instalment or last instalment, settlement and concessions shall stand revoked and entire claim of Bank in application plus interest as claimed by applicant bank with costs and charges shall be revived - Settlement was made subject to approval of Tribunal - Decree was passed on compromise petition by Tribunal wherein it was stated that since due dates for payment in accordance with terms of settlement was expired due to delay in disposal of compromise petition, compromising defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were directed also to pay apart from payment in accordance with compromise interest at 11% per annum (simple) on dues from respective dates of payment in accordance with compromise till date of realisation - Challenged - Held, since compromise is a product of agreement and such compromise becomes a rule of law only when court recognizes such compromise as legal and puts a seal on it, any of parties can resile from agreement before compromise is made a rule of court - It is duty of Court and/or Tribunal to ascertain even at time of passing of ultimate decree on compromise as to whether the are still willing to get their dispute settled on basis of such compromise or not - When it was found that terms of compromise could not be given effect to without modification of terms of compromise, Tribunal instead of disposing of proceeding on compromise in modified form, ought to have enquired from parties as to whether they still wanted to get their dispute settled by altering schedule of payment or not or in any other modified form - Notwithstanding provision contained in compromise petition, tribunal had no jurisdiction to impose additional condition on parties by altering terms of settlement without taking their consent - Hence, decree which was passed by Tribunal on basis of such compromise petition is illegal and such decree cannot be retained on record - Application disposed of.
|
Joseph vs Gladis Sasi
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 20 Jul 2010]
|
Magma Fincorp Limited, Formerly Magma Leasing Finance Limited, New Delhi vs Ashok Kumar Gupta
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 19 Jul 2010]
Consumer Protection - Banking & Finance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Respondent /complainant entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the petitioners for the financing of a truck for a sum of Rs.11,95,000/- - Alleging failure on part of the respondent to pay the installments regularly, the truck in question was taken possession and was subsequently sold out by the petitioner - Respondent approached District Forum alleging forceful and illegal possession of the truck by the petitioner, seeking a direction to the petitioners to return his truck, failing which to compensate him for the loss of his income and other investments made in the construction of a body on the chassis - District Forum allowed said complaint - On appeal, State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum - Hence, present petition - Whether order of the State Commission could be upheld? - Held, petitioners have not refuted the claim of the respondent that after the purchase of the chassis, he had spent Rs.2.00 Lakhs in constructing the body on the said vehicle - It is also a fact that the vehicle had met with an accident during December, 2007, for which the respondent has claimed that an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was incurred by him on its repairs - Despite these difficulties, respondent had paid Rs.3,90,236/- towards the installments - It was in these circumstances that respondent had failed to pay few installments and the vehicle was taken possession of - While the respondent/complainant claims that the possession was taken forcibly by pushing out the driver, the petitioners contend that the possession was taken only after a notice had been served on the respondent/complainant vide letter dated 01.11.2007 - This aspect has been gone into by both the Fora below and their clear cut finding is that the notice was a sham and had been issued only after the vehicle had been repossessed - No case for interference in revision has been made out against the concurrent finding of both the Fora below - Revision petition dismissed
|
Ganpati Panchayatan Sansthan Trust, through its Manager, Balkishan S/o Nathmalji Jaju vs (1) Union of India, through Secretary, Finance Department, New Delhi; (2) National Securities Depository Limited; (3) Karur Vyasya Bank Limited, through its Borivali Branch Manager
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 16 Jul 2010]
|
Bank of Baroda, through its Sitabuldi Branch vs (1) J. K. Chemicals, through its Partner, Hyder Alia Jafar Ali; (2) Hyder Ali s/o Jafar Alia Gulam Hussain; (3) Hussain Ali Jafar Ali Gulam Hussain; (4) Shankar Nichhaldad Khemchandani; (5) Omprakash Amarchand Bhandari
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 14 Jul 2010]
|
|