S.C.DATTA, S.MAJUMDAR, D.KARFORMA
INDIAN ELECTRIC AND TRANSFORMER CO. – Appellant
Versus
UNITED BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
Mr. Justice S.C. Datta, President—The petitioner approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not disbursing the loan to him. He has claimed a sum of Rupees twenty lacs as compensation.
2. It appears that the petitioner applied for loan from the O.P.-Bank and obtained cash credit facilities to the tune of rupees eighty thousand and odd. He also applied for term loan facility which was sanctioned by the Bank upon certain undertaking given by the petitioner. The opposite party has come with an objection to the effect that since the petitioner did not comply with the formalities in the sanction letter they did not disburse the loan amount. Their further case is that the petitioner having failed to liquidate the cash credit overdraft, they have instituted a money suit being No. 23 of 1993 before the Fourth Court of Assistant District Judge for a sum of Rs. 1,76,000.00. The Bank submits that the documents filed by them would make it crystal clear that the Bank was always eager to disburse the loan but the petitioner having not complied with the terms and conditions of the loan, no disbursement could be made. The Bank has filed serie
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.