India Case Law

BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY (1939) LTD. versus M/S HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. SINCE HAS BEEN MERGED INTO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that amalgamation of the tenant bank with PNB amounted to parting with possession without written consent, attracting Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act.

• Section 14(1)(b) of the delhi rent control act, 1958
• Amalgamation under section 45 of the banking regulation act, 1949
• Parting with possession
• Assignment of tenancy rights
• Effect of amalgamation on tenancy
• Delhi-rent-control-act

Read case analysis

VIRINDER PAL SINGH versus PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ORS.

Where service regulations expressly permit continuation of disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to superannuation, such proceedings can be continued and concluded after retirement and penalties that affect pension by reduction in pay scale are implementable by adjusting pension computed with reference to the reduced pay; in the present case Charge No.2 was partly proved and the punishment of reduction by three stages on a permanent basis was permissible and implementable.

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary proceedings post-retirement
• Reduction in pay scale
• Pension computation
• Continuance of inquiry after superannuation
• Financial irregularity in loan disbursal

Read case analysis

SATHEESH V.K. versus THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

Where a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment is withdrawn without liberty to re-approach this Court, a subsequent Special Leave Petition challenging the same order is not maintainable; entertaining such a second SLP would be contrary to public policy and effectively amount to revisiting an order which the litigant chose not to pursue, therefore the appeals were dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Maintainability of second special leave petition
• Withdrawal of slp without liberty to re-approach
• Review petition
• Order xlvii rule 7(1) cpc
• Public policy - finis litium

Read case analysis

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus TANYA ENERGY ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI ALLURI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA VARMA

The High Court erred in directing reconsideration because the respondent's application under the OTS 2020 Scheme was incomplete and did not comply with clause 4(i)'s mandatory requirement to deposit an up-front payment of 5% of the OTS amount; this fundamental non-compliance justifies the bank's rejection even though that ground was not mentioned in the rejection letter, and a court may uphold such an alternative ground drawn from the record provided the affected party is put on notice and given an opportunity to respond.

Source excerpt

• One time settlement 2020 scheme
• Eligibility for ots
• Judicial review of administrative orders
• Up-front payment requirement
• Reconsideration of administrative decision
• Mandamus

Read case analysis

THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) CANARA BANK versus GANGANARASIMHAIAH

The Tribunal and the High Court erred by reappreciating evidence and acting as appellate bodies under Section 11-A; the disciplinary enquiry, its findings and the appellate concurrence were supported by some evidence and were not perverse or based on no evidence, accordingly the orders of the Tribunal and High Court setting aside compulsory retirement and directing reinstatement were set aside and the Disciplinary Authority's order of compulsory retirement was affirmed; respondent remains entitled to gratuity and pensionary benefits.

Source excerpt

• Compulsory retirement
• Reinstatement
• Disciplinary enquiry
• Judicial review in disciplinary matters
• Natural justice
• Standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities)

Read case analysis

M/S EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION LIMITED versus REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER II AND RECOVERY OFFICER, RO BENGALURU (KORAMANGALA) & ANR.

Because Axis Bank had not been impleaded before the High Court and the question of priority between EPFO (under Section 11(2) of the PF Act) and secured creditors (relying on Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act) required determination, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and restored the writ petition directing the High Court to decide afresh after impleading Axis Bank and affording all parties a chance to exchange pleadings and be heard; the Supreme Court did not decide the merits on priority itself.

Source excerpt

• Priority of charge
• Employees' provident fund (epfo) dues
• Sarfaesi act s.35
• Pf act s.11(2)
• Recovery from auction sale proceeds
• Impleading of parties

Read case analysis

A.M. KULSHRESTHA versus UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Because the Respondent Bank had itself acknowledged that the case involved a vigilance angle and had sought the CVC's first-stage advice, it was not open to the Bank to serve the charge sheet without first receiving and considering that advice; serving the charge sheet under those circumstances was mala fide and arbitrary, and therefore the disciplinary proceedings and charge sheet were quashed; the appellant is entitled to retirement benefits but not to back wages.

Source excerpt

• Consultation with central vigilance commission (cvc)
• Regulation 19 of union of india officer employees’ (discipline & appeal) regulations, 1976
• Disciplinary proceedings
• Charge-sheet served without cvc first-stage advice
• Suspension of employee
• Retiral/pension benefits

Read case analysis

THE CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD & ANR.

The Court held that respondent No.1 is not a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) because obtaining the project loan had a close nexus with a profit-generating activity and the dominant purpose for the loan was commercial (to generate profits from post-production of the film); consequently, the NCDRC lacked jurisdiction and its order dated 30.08.2023 was set aside.

Source excerpt

• Definition of consumer
• Maintainability of consumer complaint
• Deficiency in service
• Wrongful reporting to credit information bureau
• Project loan
• Commercial purpose

Read case analysis

HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD. versus AWAZ & ORS.

The NCDRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the representative complaint by the trusts (which had not obtained prior permission and, as trusts, were not consumers under the 1986 Act), and the NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to regulate or cap bank interest rates—a regulatory domain of the RBI protected by Section 21A/35A of the Banking Regulation Act; accordingly the NCDRC's directions fixing a 30% p.a. ceiling and related observations were set aside and its judgment dated 07.07.2008 quashed.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Locus standi
• Reserve bank regulation
• Rates of interest
• Representative complaints
• Unfair trade practice

Read case analysis

IDBI BANK LTD. versus RAMSWAROOP DALIYA AND ORS.

The respondents were not in default and had offered to deposit the balance sale consideration; the appellant-Bank unilaterally cancelled the confirmed auction without notice and had effectively impliedly extended time by its conduct, therefore Rule 9(4) did not operate to forfeit the respondents' rights; the High Court rightly directed issuance of the sale certificate/registering the sale deed upon deposit of the balance within four weeks.

Source excerpt

• E-auction
• Auction sale
• Default
• Balance sale consideration
• Rule 9(4) of the security interest (enforcement) rules, 2002
• Natural justice

Read case analysis