Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Canara Bank vs M/S Leatheroid Plastics Pvt Ltd. on 20 May, 2020

M/S. Kayakalp Agencies vs Syndicate Bank on 26 July, 2023

7.      Under Clause-12 of Facility Sanction Letter dated 21.12.2015 and Clause-8 of Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 22.12.2015, obligation to take insurance policy of hypothecated good was upon the complainant but the complainant did not take insurance policy of hypothecated good as such the bank cannot be held guilty for committing deficiency in service as the bank was not under obligation to take insurance policy. While interpreting similar terms, Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. Leatheroid Plastic Private Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 722, held that duty to effect insurance was with the borrower and the bank could not be held responsible, if there was any loss or damage to hypothecated assets which was not adequately covered by insurance taken by the borrower.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Kanak Kishore Bhaskar vs M.D, M/S Gitanjali Group Of Company & Ors on 24 April, 2024

We   have heard both the learned counsel for the complainant  and the learned counsel for the O.P. no-5.At the time of  hearing  the learned counsel for the  complainant relied  on the decision as reported in CPJ (2020) (2) SC 46 (M/S Nandan Biometric Ltd  vrs. Amlika Devi),CPJ (2020( (2) SC55 (Canara Bank vs. M/S Leatheriod Plastics  Pvt.Ltd. On the  other hand  the learned counsel for the O.P. no-5 has relied  on the decision  as reported in (2014) 3CPJ 350   NCDRC (NLP organics  Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Indian Bank & ors).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank vs Ishwar Dayal on 30 April, 2024

In Canara Bank V. Leatheroid Plastics ( P) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 722, where the Bank had done insurance of part of the assets of Complainant / borrower and omitted certain assets, Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the need for bank to atleast alert the Complainant / borrower.   On account of the deficiency of services of the OP bank, financial losses have occurred to the complainant, and therefore, the complainant is liable to be indemnified for the deficiency of services by the OP bank. We agree with finding of State Commission, there is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order. Accordingly, the RP is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is upheld
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next