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

S.M.KANTIKAR, DINESH SINGH
Standard Chartered Bank – Appellant
Versus
Lakhwinder Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Devmani Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondent: In person with Gurcharan Singh, POA holder

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member.—The Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 31.08.2017 of the State Commission, whereby the appeal filed by the Opposite Party – Standard Chartered Bank was dismissed in limine and the Order dated 07.06.2017 of the District Forum, allowing the Complaint, was affirmed.

2. The Petitioner was the Opposite Party (OP) and the Respondent was the Complainant in the Complaint and they are being accordingly referred to hereinafter.

3. Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the Complainant and his wife were the joint holders of an FDR issued on 06.05.1997 for Rs. 50,000/- by the OP – Bank. It was issued on the basis of a Reinvestment Deposit Plan. The initial date of maturity was 06.05.1999. The Complainant approached the OP – Bank for encashment of the amount in the year 2016; the OP - Bank refused.

The Complainant’s case was that under the Reinvestment Deposit Plan of the OP – Bank the FDR was to get reinvested automatically till instructions were given by the account holder either to get the same encashed prematurely or to get the status of the same changed. The

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