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

J.M.MALIK, S.M.KANTIKAR
HDFC Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tara Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocate

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Counsel for the petitioner heard. Respondents/ complainants have not turned up, despite service. Respondent No.1 had received the litigation charges, but has not turned up. The respondents are proceeded against ex-parte.

2. Sh. Tara Singh, the complainant was the owner of one Tralla. He sold the same to one Shri Sakartar Singh, for a sum of Rs.7,82,500/-. Tara Singh received a sum of Rs.2,60,426/- as earnest money. The said Tralla was financed by HDFC Bank, OP1, for a sum of Rs.2,42,074/-. Tara Singh and Sakartar Singh agreed that a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- would be paid by Sakartar Singh to the complainant upto 20.04.2009 and Rs.2,42,074/- would be paid to HDFC Bank and after that NOC and Form No.35 from HDFC Bank would be issued to Sakartar Singh.

3. It is alleged that Sakartar Singh in connivance with OPs 1 & 2, got issued NOC and Form No.35. On 30.03.2009, when the complainant pressurized for NOC and Form No.35, he was informed by Manager, HDFC Bank, OP2 that they had already issued the documents through OP3. It is mentioned that OPs 2, 3 & 4 are all the functionaries of HDFC Bank.

4. Sh. Sandeep Singuria, employee of HDFC- OP- 4 identified the per









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