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

PRITAM PAL, NEENA SANDHU
NARESH MALHOTRA – Appellant
Versus
ICICI BANK LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate,Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

Pritam Pal, President - The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 503/2009 filed by Naresh Malhotra (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed against ICICI Bank Limited etc. (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) in the following terms:

"The OPs are directed not to charge any pre-payment charges and if the same has been charged by it during the pendency of the complaint, to refund the same, along with interest @ 8% per annum since the date of receipt of the said amount till the amount is paid back to the Complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the Complainant, along with Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount along with penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.4.2009, till realization."

2. In fact appeal No. 582/2009 has been filed by ICICI Bank Limited for setting aside the impugned order whereas appeal No. 576/2009 has been filed by the complainant f

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