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

DEEPA SHARMA, SUBHASH CHANDRA
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Sobti HUF – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharya, Advocate

ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred as “the Bank”) against the order dated 03.03.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.800 of 2019. By the impugned order, the State Commission has modified the order dated 05.11.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.507 of 2019 of the Complainant which was allowed.

2. It is alleged by learned Counsel for the Bank that the impugned order suffers with illegality and has been passed in violation of the rules governing the conduct of the Banks. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Bank that as per the Rule 9 sub-rule 3 of Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, it was the duty of the Complainant, the PF Account Holder, to apply for withdrawal of the money on maturity of the PF Account which he has failed to do and by mistake, the Bank continued to credit the interest in his PF Account till 31st March 2019. It is submitted that the date of maturity of PF Acc

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