Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Rajeev Kumar Mishra vs M/S Religare Finvest Ltd. on 12 February, 2016

Bench: Dipak Misra, N.V. Ramana

                                                           1


     ITEM NO.6                              COURT NO.4                         SECTION XVII

                                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F                I N D I A
                                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                           No(s).   19712/2015

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/03/2015
     in RP No. 2648/2013 passed by the National Consumers Disputes
     Reddressal Commission, New Delhi)

     H.B. MOHAMMED AND ANR.                                                      Petitioner(s)

                                                         VERSUS

     M/S. MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD.                                                   Respondent(s)

     Date : 12/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

     For Petitioner(s)                  Mr.   Santosh Paul, Adv.
                                        Mr.   A. Gupta, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Raghav Shekhar, Adv.
                                        Mr.   M. J. Paul,Adv.

     For Respondent(s)


                            UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                               O R D E R

It is admitted by Mr. M.J. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the National Commission') has absolutely erred by granting interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Though the same is not payable by the complainant as the rate of interest payable by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2016.02.15 Petitioners to the Respondent is controlled by the 16:56:25 IST Reason: provisions contained in Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and also the Karnataka Prohibition on Charging Exorbitant 2 Interest Act, 2004. On a perusal of the Order passed by the National Commission, we do not find that the Commission has adverted to the said fact though such a plea was taken before the fora below.

In view of the aforesaid, we grant liberty to the petitioners to file an application for review before the National Commission. If such an application is filed within the time stipulated hereinabove, the same shall be adverted to on its own merit without being influenced by the observations made earlier.

If ultimately the Petitioner suffers an adverse order, liberty is granted to him to challenge the main order as well as the order passed in review.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.

      (NEELAM GULATI)                                (H.S. PARASHER)
       COURT MASTER                                    COURT MASTER