Skip to main content

'Can’t resolve cheating cases in summary trial’

The Pune district consumer disputes redressal forum has held that allegations of cheating, fraud and forgery cannot be resolved in a summary proceeding.

"Such matters need detail investigation, inquiry and examination of witnesses for adjudication of dispute," a three-member bench of the forum, headed by its president V P Utpat, has ruled.

In a judgment pronounced on May 16, the forum dismissed the complaint by a Bhosalenagar couple who alleged deficient service on the part of the Bank of Baroda and Bank of Maharashtra branches at Yeshwantnagar and Ganeshkhind Road respectively, following an alleged fraudulent encashment of Rs 3 lakh cheque from their account.

The forum held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the dispute between the complainant and the two banks involved complicated questions of law and facts that required thorough inquiry, examination of witnesses and the same was not possible in summary proceeding. The forum relied on a August 30, 2000 judgment by the national consumer disputes redressal commission which held that such matters can not be decided by the consumer forum.

In their complaint, Satish S Aurangabadkar and his wife Nandshree had sought the forum's directions to the two banks for refund of Rs 3 lakh with Rs 69,386.30 in interest between October 24, 2008 till February 5, 2010 when the complaint was filed. The couple also sought further interest at the rate of 18% from February 5, 2010 till the forum's order besides Rs 10,000 cost of correspondence, Rs 50,000 litigation cost and Rs 3 lakh in compensation.

According to their complaint, Nandshree, who had an account with the Yeshwantnagar branch of Bank of Baroda, had issued a bearer cheque of Rs 3 lakh in the name of her husband, Satish, who had an account with the Ganeshkhind branch of Bank of Maharashtra. Satish deposited the cheque in his account on October 24, 2008 and nearly three weeks later when he visited the bank, he was told that the cheque had not been credited in his account. Further inquiry revealed that somebody else had encashed the cheque on October 25, 2008.

In the ensuing dispute, the couple alleged that some staffers from the two banks had colluded to effect the encashment. On their part, the banks insisted that the cheque was never deposited and was neither sent for clearance. It was a bearer cheque and they had taken all precautions required for encashment of such a cheque. The matter was even referred to the ombudsman, but there was no relief for the couple, who have also lodged a criminal complaint and moved the consumer forum for compensation.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Cant-resolve-cheating-cases-in-summary-trial/articleshow/47400835.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...