Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Canara Bank vs M/S Leatheroid Plastics Pvt Ltd. on 20 May, 2020
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.
New Tyre Centre vs Bank Of India on 21 July, 2023
A Full Bench of this Commission in 114 of 2015 New Tyre Centre vs. Bank of India & Anr. and cross appeal No.123 of 2015 on 20.1.2022 held that if under law or under the agreement, any obligation has to be performed by a party and it was not performed by that party then other party of the agreement cannot be said to have committed deficiency in service.
1