Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.67 seconds)
Canada Bank, Gandhinagar Branch, ... vs Kaneti Durga Prasad, Paloncha on 5 December, 2012 cites

Bank Of Baroda vs Ranjeet Singh on 13 September, 2012

There is no dispute that the complainant attracted with the publication of sale notice in Andhra Jyothi newspaper dt. 16.12.2009 the complainant submitted open tender to purchase House bearing No. 11-4-129 consists of RCC Building with 2 rooms, 1-Hall, 1 kitchen by public auction taken over by them from One S.Nagamani, W/o. Apparao of Radhalapeta, Pithapuram Mandal, in Andhra Jyothi, dated 16.12.2009 for Rs.3,00,500/- and he has been declared as successful bidder and accordingly he paid Rs.70,125/- to OP on 27.3.2010 on the tender amount including EMD and thereafter paid Rs.3,25,375/- vide cheque dated 4.2.2010 within 15 days from the date of sale. The complainant contends that he fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the auction and paid entire sale consideration but OP did not deliver the vacant possession of the property and thus rendered deficient service and thereby he has been subjected to mental agony and financial loss. Whereas the contention of the Op is that it is not their obligation to deliver the vacant possession of the property and in spite of it to assist the complainant they approached Collector/District Magistrate, East Godavari in the said context and that the District Collector issued proceedings dated 17.03.2010 authorizing the Tahsildar, Pithapuram to exercise powers U/s.14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and deliver possession of the property to the OP and that thereupon the OP bank along with Revenue officials and police went to take possession of the property on 27.3.2010 and that borrower namely S. Nagamani, who, became defaulter in paying loan amount to the OP bank in respect of the said house created all sorts of hurdles and also threatened with self-immolation and that the complainant is fully aware of the fact that the property was in possession of the said defaulter having inspected the same before submitting his bid and therefore she is estopped from contending that OP has an obligation to deliver the property and that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and therefore orders under appeal are not sustainable. The counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in Bank of Baroda Vs Ranjeet Singh IV 2012 CPJ (NC); United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110. The complainant did not dispute that the proceedings under SARFAESI Act 2002 are initiated in the said matter and in such circumstances certainly the consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum did not appreciate the said fact in proper perspective. Had such proceedings were not issued, the things would have been different and there was possibility of holding that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint but when such proceedings were initiated certainly the recourse is only under special Act but not under CP Act therefore the Appeal is liable to be allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently the complaint stands dismissed in this regard.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010

There is no dispute that the complainant attracted with the publication of sale notice in Andhra Jyothi newspaper dt. 16.12.2009 the complainant submitted open tender to purchase House bearing No. 11-4-129 consists of RCC Building with 2 rooms, 1-Hall, 1 kitchen by public auction taken over by them from One S.Nagamani, W/o. Apparao of Radhalapeta, Pithapuram Mandal, in Andhra Jyothi, dated 16.12.2009 for Rs.3,00,500/- and he has been declared as successful bidder and accordingly he paid Rs.70,125/- to OP on 27.3.2010 on the tender amount including EMD and thereafter paid Rs.3,25,375/- vide cheque dated 4.2.2010 within 15 days from the date of sale. The complainant contends that he fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the auction and paid entire sale consideration but OP did not deliver the vacant possession of the property and thus rendered deficient service and thereby he has been subjected to mental agony and financial loss. Whereas the contention of the Op is that it is not their obligation to deliver the vacant possession of the property and in spite of it to assist the complainant they approached Collector/District Magistrate, East Godavari in the said context and that the District Collector issued proceedings dated 17.03.2010 authorizing the Tahsildar, Pithapuram to exercise powers U/s.14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and deliver possession of the property to the OP and that thereupon the OP bank along with Revenue officials and police went to take possession of the property on 27.3.2010 and that borrower namely S. Nagamani, who, became defaulter in paying loan amount to the OP bank in respect of the said house created all sorts of hurdles and also threatened with self-immolation and that the complainant is fully aware of the fact that the property was in possession of the said defaulter having inspected the same before submitting his bid and therefore she is estopped from contending that OP has an obligation to deliver the property and that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and therefore orders under appeal are not sustainable. The counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in Bank of Baroda Vs Ranjeet Singh IV 2012 CPJ (NC); United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110. The complainant did not dispute that the proceedings under SARFAESI Act 2002 are initiated in the said matter and in such circumstances certainly the consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum did not appreciate the said fact in proper perspective. Had such proceedings were not issued, the things would have been different and there was possibility of holding that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint but when such proceedings were initiated certainly the recourse is only under special Act but not under CP Act therefore the Appeal is liable to be allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently the complaint stands dismissed in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 3973 - Full Document
1