Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Section 2 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Arun Bhatiya vs Hdfc Bank on 8 August, 2022
He
further submitted that complaint of the complainant is
maintainable under section 2(d)(ii) and (o) of the Consumer
Protection Act and relied upon judgments, i.e. Arun Bhatia Vs.
HDFC Bank, Civil Appeal No.5204-5205 of 2022, 2006 (5)
Supreme Court Cases 727 and AIR 2007 MP 114, titled Laxmi
Grih Udyog & Anr. Versus State of MP and Ors.
4
M/S Alpine Pressure Cooker versus Punjab National Bank
(FA No.371/2019)
Gian Chand vs Tata Finance Limited on 7 May, 2012
7. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that
appellant has availed loan about Rs.3.00 crores from the
respondents' bank. He further submitted that appellant became
defaulter in the said loan account. Settlement proceedings
between the parties were initiated and a sum of Rs.1,19,00,000/-
was accepted as one time settlement amount and earnest money
of Rs.19,00,000/- was paid to the respondents' bank. Learned
counsel of the appellant has further submitted that respondents'
bank run away from the one time settlement scheme and the
earnest money of Rs.19,00,000/- deposited for one time
settlement was adjusted by the respondents' bank towards the
loan amount. He further submitted that proceedings are also
pending adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Chandigarh. He further submitted that the judgment of Gian
Chand Vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., relied upon in the impugned
order is not applicable in the present case. He further submitted
that the District Forum below went wrong in holding that complaint
is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
1