Kiran Bansal vs Idbi Bank on 17 September, 2015
The said decision was set aside by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.800/2009 titled as DDA Vs. Sunil Bharti decided on 13.8.09.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)Documents citing
Dda vs Sunil Bharti on 13 August, 2009
Dda vs Chanchal Kr. on 3 November, 2015
8. Moreover, in view of decision of National Commission in DDA Vs. Sunil Bharti IV (2009) CPJ 88, decision cited by counsel for the respondent cannot be followed. The reason being that decision cited by counsel for the respondent is that of State Commission only.
Idbi Bank Limited vs Surjit Kaur on 17 August, 2023
(i) the impugned order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the State Commission is bad in law, biased and is against the principles of natural justice as such is a non-speaking order and is liable to be quashed/set aside. The impugned judgment is against the facts of the case and principles of natural justice and is based on surmises and conjectures without considering the documentary proofs on record and thus has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice hence liable to be set aside. The State Commission committed material irregularity and passed the impugned order arbitrarily without considering the basic facts and admissions of the defaults on the part of the Respondents. The State Commission committed material irregularity and has passed the impugned order without observing the merits of the Appeal and the facts that the Petitioner since the year 2002 has been consistently publishing the Call Notice/Reminder Notices in leading/daily National Newspapers alongwith Chandigarh Editions and the said Newspapers are having vast readership in the vicinity where the Respondent had been residing. The State Commission passed the impugned order arbitrarily without considering the basic facts and admissions of service of call notice through publication dated 04.06.2010 as admitted in para 6 of the complaint. The State Commission misinterpreted the judgment passed by this Commission in T. K. Nagaratha and wrongly applied the principles laid down in the said judgment in the present case and failed to consider the judgement of this Commission passed in DDA Vs Sunil Bharti.
1