Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Punjab National Bank vs Vineet Kumar & Another on 7 February, 2018

State Bank Of India vs Vineet Kumar on 27 January, 2021

2. The case of the plaintiff bank as discernible from the plaint of this suit and the documents filed along with the plaint of this suit is that the plaintiff bank is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. This suit has CS NO. 227/2020 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. VINEET KUMAR PAGE 5 OF 5 been filed by the plaintiff bank through Sh. Alok Manglik, who is competent to sign, verify and institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank as per the regulations 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulation 1955 framed by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred on it under State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the prior approval of Government of India read with notification dated 27.03.1987 published in the Gazette of India on 02.05.1987. It is stated that the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for grant of car loan and the plaintiff bank had sanctioned a car loan of Rs. 4,80,000/­ in favour of the defendant, on 08.07.2013, in respect of which the defendant had executed various documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. As per the said documents, it was inter­alia agreed that the defendant would repay the said loan amount in 84 equated monthly EMIs of Rs. 8,081/­ each commencing from 08.07.2013.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Ashok Kumar & Others on 14 September, 2022

11. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellants on the fact that response code "000" has been shown against the subject transaction. On behalf of the complainant, some literature has been filed to show that response code "000" is shown against wrong denomination of notes; ATM may be out of cash; network or power failure or technical / mechanical snag in the ATM. Hence, merely on the basis that response code "000" was shown, it can not be safely concluded that the transaction was successful, unless there is cogent and reliable evidence in that regard on record, which is missing in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants cited judgment and order dated 07.02.2018 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 218 of 2014; State Bank of India Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and another. Merely because the complainant has used the ATM of Punjab National Bank, the entire liability can not be fastened upon the said bank. The complainant is an accountholder of State Bank of India and the said bank can not escape from its liability in the event of wrongful debit of amount from the account of the customer and can not be allowed to say that since the customer has used other's bank ATM, the liability, if any, is that of the said bank. Hence, the above cited decision does not provide any help to the appellants.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1