SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.N.KAPOOR, B.K.TAIMNI
M. Mallika – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, State Bank of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellants : Nemo.
For the Respondents:Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate.

ORDER

S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member — By this order, we proceed to decide above three appeals arising out of similar and common questions of law and facts. The Complainants/Appellants were either partners or guarantors of loans granted to 4 other firms. By these appeals, they are claiming compensation for mental agony and harassment, caused due to non ­delivery of their title deeds, despite all payments.

2. In all these three appeals, the Appellants were Complainant, before the State Commission and all the three filed three separate complaints seeking similar reliefs of direction against the State; Bank of India to deliver the documents/ title deeds of mortgage properties for the entire amount had been paid in terms of Section 60 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 along with compensation for mental agony of Rs.5,00,001/- in two cases and Rs. 10,00,001/- in one case and cost.

On the other hand, the bank has contested the matter on the ground that these complainants were also partners and guarantors of loans granted to other concern and huge sums were due against them as Guarantors.

3. The bank contested FA No. 664 of 1996, inter alia, on the ground that the complainant -Mrs. M. M































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top