Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Idbi Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs Subhash Chand Jain & Anr. on 15 October, 2012

State Bank Of India vs Balveer Kaur on 15 November, 2021

In other judgment titled as "M/s IDBI Bank Ltd. & another Vs. Subhash Chand Jain & another", Revision Petition No.806 of 2008, decided on 15.10.2012, it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that "the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikas Sharma vs Mona Township Pvt. Ltd. on 8 February, 2022

In other judgment titled as "M/s IDBI Bank Ltd. & another Vs. Subhash Chand Jain & another", Revision Petition No.806 of 2008, decided on 15.10.2012, it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission C.C. No.920 of 2019 16 that "the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest." In view of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the ratio of above judgments, OP No.4-Bank is directed to overhaul the loan account of the complainant, to charge interest rate as per guidelines and PLR issued by RBI from time to time, to adjust the amount of subsidy in the principal outstanding amount and then to supply the account statement. The complainants are also held entitled to compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by them due to act of OP No.4-Bank.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Icici Home Finance Ltd. vs Jarnail Singh on 12 February, 2018

14. In para No. 10 of the above judgment, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that they find that the grounds advanced before us by Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, in our opinion, have to be accepted and accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the order so passed by the National First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 19 Commission and confirmed the order so passed by the State Commission, in which it was held that intimation of resetting of the interest should be given to the complainant. However, counsel for the complainant referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission "M/S IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs Subhash Chand Jain & Anr.", decided on 15 October, 2012 in which, it was observed that the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Bank Of India vs Rakesh Kumar on 26 August, 2022

7.       Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that all the installments had paid in time and after completion of the loan amount, he was entitled to claim No Due Certificate from the appellant bank.  The claimant was entitled to claim No due Certificate.  No outstanding dues were pending against him. The learned District Commission  rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. He placed his reliance upon authority of Hon'ble National Commission  titled "IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand Jain & Anr. Law finder Doc ID # 585858
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Idbi Bank Limited vs Prakash Chandra Sharma & Anr. on 30 May, 2018

13.     Learned counsel for the Bank vehemently argued that the State Commission has miserably failed to appreciate that the payment of pre EMIs facility was only for the period of 18 months or the date of offer of possession whichever was earlier; that the Bank had conducted  the TSR(Total Search Report) of the Developer before advancing the Home Loan; till the disbursement of the Home Loan the title of the land was very much clear; that the Tripartite Agreement and the MOU read together make the Complainant completely accountable to pay the loan amount; that the State Commission has wrongly stayed the recovery proceedings of the Bank and advanced other reliefs to the Complainants  which they were not entitled to; that the Bank filed an OA/80/2014 titled as IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Sharma & Anr. before the Hon'ble DRT, Jaipur claiming the recovery of ₹17,90,782/-; that clauses 2 to 10 of the Tripartite Agreement read together with Clauses 1,2,3,4 and 8 of the MOU clearly stipulated that the EMIs and the interest amount had to be paid by the purchaser only; that as per Clause 3 of the MOU the Bank shall not be held responsible for any delay in offer of possession of the premises and the Bank reserves the right to demand the payment of interest from the purchaser and having signed the MOU, the purchaser had to accept the terms and pay the subject amount and hence there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice adopted by the Bank in this regard.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Hdfc Ltd. vs Ram Pal Garg on 14 June, 2018

In another judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in "M/S IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs Subhash Chand Jain & Anr.", decided on 15 October, 2012, it was observed that the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest. Therefore, on the basis of documents, the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, the variation in the rate of interest and in the EMI without notice to the complainants is not justified, therefore, the Op will continue to charge interest @ 10% on the loan amount for the period 15.7.2011 to 15.11.2016.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balwant Singh vs Uco Bank on 4 January, 2022

In other judgment titled as "M/s IDBI Bank Ltd. & another Vs. Subhash First Appeal No.99 of 2020 11 Chand Jain & another", Revision Petition No.806 of 2008, decided on 15.10.2012, it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that "the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next