Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (2.27 seconds)
Documents citing Standard Chartered Bank Ltd vs Dr. B.N. Raman on 14 July, 2006

Purna Chandra Sahu vs Odisha Gramya Bank & Anr. on 7 July, 2025

11. However, the primary ground on which the Appeal was allowed was that the Complainant was not a Consumer as he had obtained the Cash Credit Loan for commercial purpose to augment his business and accordingly it was held that the Complainant was not a Consumer. The State Commission distinguished the judgment in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. vs. B.N. Raman (Dr.) (supra) on the ground that it did not involve the issue as to whether the Respondent in that case namely Dr. B. N. Raman was a Consumer or not and therefore the said decision was not applicable. It was also held that the observations made by the Apex Court were with regard to the nature of functions performed by the Bank and the Banking facilities and therefore it did not touch upon the issue as pleaded.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sam Fine O Chem Limited vs Union Bank Of India on 12 April, 2013

Even the judgment in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B. N. Raman (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the this case. The aforesaid judgment related to the case pertaining to deficiency in service in respect of foreign currency deposited in the NRI account holder and it was not a case of loan or credit facility availed by the customer for commercial purpose.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Regional Passport Office vs Santokh Singh on 6 July, 2020

In this behalf, it would suffice to make reference to a recent order dated 13.03.2015 passed in Revision Petition No. 3785 of 2013 (Passport Officer Vs. Ajay Bansal), wherein referring to the earlier orders passed First Appeal No.131 of 2020 9 by this Commission and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N. Raman - (2006) 5 SCC 727 and Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha - (2009) 8 SCC 483, a co- ordinate Bench of this Commission has also taken the aforestated view."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Regional Passport Officer vs Gurmeet Singh on 5 August, 2020

In this behalf, it would suffice to make reference to a recent order dated 13.03.2015 passed in Revision Petition No. 3785 of 2013 (Passport Officer Vs. Ajay Bansal), wherein referring to the earlier orders passed by this Commission and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N. Raman - (2006) 5 SCC 727 and Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha - (2009) 8 SCC 483, a co- ordinate Bench of this Commission has also taken the aforestated view."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harpal Singh vs Improvement Trust Barnala on 17 February, 2021

10. Sovereign functions like judicial decision making, imposition of tax, policing etc, strictly understood, qualify for exemption from the Act, but the welfare activities through economic adventures undertaken by the Government or statutory bodies are covered under the jurisdiction of the consumer forums. Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are sub units/wings which are providing services/supply goods for a consideration and they are severable, then they can be considered to come within the ambit of the Act. [refer to Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. v. Dr. B. N. Raman, (2006) 5 SCC 727]
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Narayana Educational Society vs The Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. on 16 September, 2011

iv) Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B. N. Raman reported in (2006) 5 SCC 727 - It was a case where an NRI who stayed in Libya placed with the appellant bank US $ 500 in the FCNR account for certain period @ 9% interest p.a. The complainant claimed the deposit together with interest @ 18% p.a. The bank opposed the complaint on the ground that the matter cannot be adjudicated by the consumer fora. Their Lordships considering the fact that the banks provide or render service/facility to its customers or even non-customers they attract the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next