Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
Axis Bank Ltd. vs Bharpur Singh & Anr. on 11 December, 2023 cites

Bank Of Maharashtra vs Automotive Engineering Co. on 8 December, 1992

15.   We have minutely compared the signatures of the aforesaid respondents/complainants appearing on the disputed cheques with the specimen signatures available on the records of the Bank i.e. Account Opening Forms. On naked eye comparison thereof, this Commission is of concerted view that the signatures on the alleged cheques apparently vary and differ from that on the Account Opening Forms and do not appear to be a genuine one. All this lead to an irresistible conclusion that before passing the cheques/ instruments in question, the concerned officials failed to compare the signatures of the complainants/ respondents appearing on the cheque with that of their specimen signatures available with the Bank. In other words, the signatures apparently appear to be forged one and on closer scrutiny, even an ordinary person could detect the same. Thus, we hold that the appellant - Bank had failed to discharge proper care and passed the Cheques without observing due diligence. We may add here that the resultant comparison view of this Commission of mismatch of the signatures of the respondents/complainants on the cheques had earlier been dealt with threadbare by the learned District Forum in view of the expert opinion rendered by Sh. Devendra Prasad, Handwriting Expert, in case of all the respondents/complainants, as transpired by the previous orders of the Forum below. Thus, the ratio of the judgment in the case of  Bank of Maharashtra (supra), as relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant - Axis Bank, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - G N Ray - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank Of India on 21 January, 2022

In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that "the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 37 - B M Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 Next