w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Hanuman Hosiery v/s Canara Bank & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- J G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TZ2001PTC009707

Company & Directors' Information:- K D S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101PB2001FTC024327

Company & Directors' Information:- R M H HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17125DL2007PTC167271

Company & Directors' Information:- P T M HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52322WB1994PTC062394

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17124TZ2002PTC010195

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U18101WB1973PTC028694

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC125110

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101MH1984PTC034394

Company & Directors' Information:- K K HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204MH2014PTC251777

Company & Directors' Information:- B B HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC267158

Company & Directors' Information:- M C S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311WB2001PTC093781

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSIERY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51311PB1985PTC006113

    Original Petition No. 251 of 1997

    Decided On, 30 April 2002

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, J.K. MEHRA

    For the Complainant: Shshir Pinaki, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: M. Jayashree, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President

The complaint is by M/s. Hanuman Hosiery, a partnership firm for recovery of Rs. 47,56,340/- on account of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Canara Bank for not releasing the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- out of Rs. 2.00 lakhs which was promised to be given to the complainant.

2. It is not disputed that a loan of Rs. 75,000/- was sanctioned by the Canara Bank. It is, however, the case of the Canara Bank that it never sanctioned loan of Rs. 2.00 lakhs or that it refused to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant out of the alleged sanctioned loan. Canara Bank had stated that when Rs. 75,000/- were sanctioned there was no assurance whatsoever given by it for further sanction of loan. As a matter of fact, complainant had not furnished any document in support of its version. Rather Bank had stated that the complainant did not submit details of estimates, requirement of working capital, proof of present over dues with Bihar State Financial Corporation, sources of raw materials and arrangement for sale of finished goods, sources of margin, stock statement, etc. Therefore, there was no question of sanctioning of any further loan. As to how the amount of over Rs. 47.50 lakhs is claimed by the complainant towards compensation following particulars were given in the complaint which we reproduce:


3. From these very figures it is apparent that such a claim is an abuse of the process of Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. We would, therefore, dism

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

iss the complaint as not maintainable. However, this order of dismissal will not come in the way of complainant if it wants to seek its remedy before any other appropriate Forum.