Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Not mentioned, J
Opposite Party / Bank – Appellant
Versus
Complainant – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common order for multiple revision petitions due to same issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. initial complaint detailed loan defaults and alleged collusion but dismissed by the district forum. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. bank contended non-maintainability and procedural compliance under sarfaesi. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. insurance company’s liability and terms of the policy discussed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. complainant's admission on signing documents undermines her claims of coercion. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. final ruling on the allowed revision. (Para 18) |
1. Since facts and the issue involved in both Revision Petitions are same, we dispose of them by a common order.
2. According to the Petitioner / Insurance Company, Revision Petition No.3221/2017 has been filed with a delay of 70 days. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed IA / 15600/2017 an application for condonation of delay. As per report of the Registry, there is no delay in filing the Revision Petition. In the interest of justice, however, IA / 15600/2017 is allowed and delay condoned.
3. Respondent No.1 in both cases is the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is the builder. Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4 are ICICI Bank Ltd. and
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
