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

ANUP K.THAKUR
Mansinghka Agencies Proprietor Smt. Santosh Mansinghka – Appellant
Versus
Bank of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pushpendra Kr. Dhaka, Advocate

ORDER

Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—Under challenge in this Revision Petition No.775 of 2020 is the impugned order dated 5.3.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1- Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.1039 of 2019 order. Vide this order, the State Commission had set aside the order dated 4.9.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara, Rajasthan (for short, ‘District Forum’), directing the case to be sent back to the District Forum, for consideration after serving notice to Suresh Kumar Meena, to be impleaded as respondent no. 4.

2. Arguments were heard on 2.3.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant chiefly made the case that the respondent - Bank of India had failed to comply with guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in respect of providing safe and secure banking service to the petitioner/complainant-Mansinghka Agencies Proprietor Mrs. Santosh Mansinghka (‘complainant’, hereafter). His case on facts was that on 28.8.2015, a cheque issued by the petitioner favouring Dainik Bhaskar for Rs.399 was processed and paid by the opposite party for Rs.4,95,000/- to one Suresh Kumar Meena. FIR

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