Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Ganesan Builders Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules Read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 2(1)(c)(i) & Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and prayed for the following judgment and decree against the defendant:
(a) Direct the defendant to refund the plaintiff the sum of Rs.46,29,810/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.32,71,412/- from the date of plaint till realisation;
(b) Direct the defendant to compensate the plaintiff by way of damages in a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards loss caused due to unreasonable withholding of monies and securities, funds, locked capital and for the mental trauma caused due to the defendant's illegal conduct;
(c) Direct the defendant to pay the costs to the suit;
The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.46,29,810/- along with interest at 18% per annum on Rs.32,71,412/- from the date of plaint till realisation. The plaintiff also claimed damages of Rs.1 crore towards loss caused due to unreasonable withholding of monies, securities, funds, locked capital and for the mental trauma caused due to the defendant
A bank cannot unilaterally revise credit facility terms without a breach by the borrower; any appropriation of funds without valid terms is unlawful.
Bank's discretion in fixing and revising credit limits based on customer's performance and financial parameters.
Banks must adhere to the terms of sanction letters and cannot unilaterally alter interest rates without borrower consent, constituting a breach of contract.
it is evident that the petitioner has not only claimed refund of full processing fees from respondent no.4, a private bank, but has also challenged the communication dated June 12, 2017 of the Assist....
The amount deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition with a view of show his bonafide to enter into a settlement was required to be returned to the borrower in the event of....
Point of Law : The OTS cannot be rendered infructuous on fanciful reasons otherwise intent of bringing an OTS scheme, and ensuing consequences, would stand defeated.
Bank extending financial facility for commercial venture & business to business transaction with profit generation as dominant purpose – Consumer Forum is not available to Complainant.
“No refund of amount can be claimed on surrender of policy, if there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy on part of Insurance Company.”
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
