Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.64 seconds)Jayant Verma . vs Union Of India on 16 February, 2018
In our view, having regard to the peculiar facts at hand, where the farmers appear to have suffered substantial losses on account of their entire produce, stored with the Cold Storage with the hope that they may be able to sell it at a better price, having perished in the fire, it is a fit case, where the Bank must consider waiving off the interest element on the loan advanced in respect of the produce in question, particularly in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayant Verma's case (supra), which appear to be on all fours to the facts at hand. Accordingly, we direct that out of the amount due to be paid by the Insurance Company, to each of the Complainants, the principal amount of loan advanced by the Bank to the Complainants, in respect of the subject stock, shall be remitted by the Insurance Company to the Bank, within four weeks of receipt of information in this regard from the Bank and the balance amount shall be remitted to each of the Complainants within the same time, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 13% p.a. payable for the same period as directed by the State Commission i.e from six months from the date of the incident till the date of realization.The Bank is hereby directed to communicate to the Insurance Company the details of the principal amount due to it from each of the Complainants, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. Since Cold Storage had not chosen to file an Appeal, we refrain from commenting about their liability.
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
Section 8 in The Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
The Usurious Loans Act, 1918
Section 19 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Addagada Raghavamma And Anr vs Addagada Chenchamma And Anr on 9 April, 1963
27. It is trite that ordinarily the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who asserts the affirmative issues and not on the party who denies it. Nevertheless, there is distinction between the phrase 'burden of proof' and 'onus of proof'. Explaining the said fine distinction in A. Raghavamma and Anr. Vs. A. Chenchamma and Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "there is essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies on the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence."
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 10 in Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
1