Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Prasad Gundurao Rao vs Kiran Madhav Jinralkar on 24 March, 2023 cites

E-Homes Infrastructure Private ... vs New Okhla Industrial Development ... on 15 March, 2023

On the contrary Learned counsel for R1 namely respective complainant submitted that the appeals are not maintainable  on the point of limitation as they are filed beyond limitation period and the grounds set out in the appeal memos to condone delay are not sufficient causes to entertain the appeals and to find support placed few reliance's reported in 2011(14) SC 578 in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority wherein held in para-05 -
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Jaspreet Singh vs Icici Home Finance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 8 August, 2013

We have gone through the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble NCDRC and the Hon'ble Apex Court of India but here in the case on hand, facts remained that the Consumer Complaints raised by respective complainant are only in respect of return of maturity value, since they were deposited their hard earned money to earn interest for their livelihood with the Society and the have shown that the society issued FD certificates in their favour. It is not that they are issued in their personal capacity but as officer bearers as the Secretary of the Belgaum Postal & RMS Division Credit Co-operative Society, Belagavi. It is therefore, the complainants herein are nothing to do with their dispute inter-se either with previous body or present body or future body as the case may be, since, matter alleged by these complainant has to be examined under consumer laws and the procedure to be followed is summery in nature, though rightly examined by the Forum below but failed to apply its mind in right perception as stated supra.  As already stated above the Forum below has taken casually for simple reason as the Ops have failed to participate in the proceedings. Had  Ops have participated and raised their objections, brought to the notice of the Forum below that Mr.Ramesh B Kolkar, the Secretary of the Society along with ex-office bearers Mr.M.M.Patil, Mr.G.P.Garade and Mr.P.S.Kalpatre for their wrongful gain fraudulently transacted with these complainants matter would have been different and the Forum below could have passed orders in their names or otherwise. If the persons at the relevant time could have acted in due diligence, participated in the proceedings matter would have been different as such in our view their wilful non-participation in the complaint cases proceedings, either they are the Society cannot escape from their liability to answer the FDs. If   according to Society certain office bearers including Mr.Ramesh B Kolkar for fraudulent transactions with these complainants have fraudulently transacted with these complainants for their wrongful gain could have initiated police complaints against them.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Hdfc Bank Ltd.And Others vs Mr.Shashikant P.Vaidya on 4 February, 2009

Learned counsel for appellants submit, issues involved in all these complaint cases require an elaborate evidence and the Forum below allowed all the complaints summarily on the ground that OPs were not participated in the proceedings.  Further, submits,  complicated question of fact and law involved in complaint cases require marathon trial cannot be decide in a summary way, since these appellants alleged fraudulent acts committed by the Secretary Mr.Ramesh B Kolkar, Mr.M.M.Patil, Mr.G.P.Garade and Mr.P.S.Kalpatre. It is true that they are specifically alleged against these persons and they are also the parties in some of the awards passed by the Forum below. It is also true that Mr.Ramesh B Kolkar is made one of the party as OP in most of the complaint cases and in few cases either Mr.Ramesh B. Kolkar or Mr.M.M.Patil, Mr.G.P.Garade, Mr.P.S.Kalpatre were not made parties in their personal capacity with their office of society designation to hold an enquiry as to their rendering deficiency in service in respect of the alleged FDs said to have been made by complainants with the society.  Learned counsel submits, fraudulent transaction carried out by all these persons by fabricating documents and to find support placed few reliance's reported in II 2016 CPJ 303 NC in the case of HDFC Bank and others v. Shashikant and others wherein held -
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1