Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Daljit Singh vs Central Bank Of India on 28 January, 2020 cites

Icici Bank Ltd. vs Mr. Maharaj Krishan Datta & Ors. on 29 September, 2014

10. Now we proceed to determine the controversy in the present case. At the outset we would like to mention that The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5928 of 2015 (arising out of SLP(C)No.1501/2015) titled as "ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Maharaj Krishan Datta and others" held that "Bank has to follow the RBI guidelines especially Schedules A and B thereto, and the Bank must be given liberty to act in the matter in accordance with the guidelines so issued by the RBI from time to time. Fixed rate, floating rate and other rates which have been mentioned in the guidelines and the right which has been given to the Banks in respect of floating reference rate (FRR) has also to be followed in all case by the Bank".
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Yasangi Venkateswara Rao on 21 January, 1999

The reserve Bank of India is the regulating authority of all the Banks under RBI Act, as held by the Apex Court in case "State Bank of India Vs. Yasangi Venkateswara Rao" 1999(1) SCR-213. There are guidelines of Reserve Bank of India that in the matter of floating rate of interest or adjustable rate of interest, the interest should be raised after notice to the borrower. There is nothing on the Consumer Complaint No.577 of 2019 11 record to prove this fact that such type of notice was ever issued to complainant in this case. the complainant has made several complaints regarding change of EMI and also issued legal notice to OP-bank. In its reply (Ex.C-8) to legal notice, OP-bank admitted that due to some error, the EMI became Rs.39,550/- and the correction was made, but again in the year 2015 the error developed, as per the terms and the conditions rescheduling the repayment, which has already been apprised to the noticee, vide letter dated 15.04.2019. But there is no evidence on record to this effect on the part of OP- bank. On the other hand, borrower has been agitating the excessive rate of interest charged by OP-bank from him vide Ex.C-4, the computerized account statement, showing the rate of interest as 10.50%. We are of the view that the bank is justified to receive enhanced rate of interest in adjustable rate of interest only after issuing notice to the borrower. This fact is not proved on record that any such notice was issued to the complainant by OP-bank for raising rate of interest. The OP bank is at liberty to do so after hearing the borrower over this matter and OP bank unilaterally is not entitled to do it without notice to borrower. In view of above, the OP- bank is deficient in service for not complying the guidelines issued by RBI from time to time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 70 - Full Document
1