Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
string, ACJ
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Sudesh Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed under the consumer protection act. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. consumer fora has jurisdiction despite fraud allegations. (Para 3 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. jurisdiction not barred by ongoing criminal proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. evidence of forgery supports the respondent's claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final decision upholding the district forum's ruling. (Para 17 , 18) |
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 impugning the order dated 6.6.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - VI, ITO, New Delhi in Complaint No. 330 of 2005 filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellants and respondent No. 2.
2. The District Forum vide the impugned order dated 6.6.2013 allowed the relief as prayed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the appellants to pay the value of shares i.e. Rs.1,15,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 28.12.2004 till payment, a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation for the deficiency & harassment and Rs.25,000 fro litigation expenses.
3. The District Forum, in its judgment dated 6.6.2013 has held as under:
"In our view, the fact that complainant is having the original instru
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
