1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Consumer Rights Upheld: Refund & Costs Ordered for FDR Dispute</h1> The Commission ruled in favor of the complainants, directing the opposite party to refund the principal FDR amounts with interest, pay litigation costs, ... Applicability of Act, Deficiency in service - Definition of Issues:- Complaint seeking repayment of FDR amounts, interest, compensation for mental harassment, litigation costs, and immediate payment.- Opposite party withholding deposited amounts on maturity without reason.- Opposite party declared as a sick industrial unit, claiming inability to repay due to closure and takeover.- Interpretation of BIFR order and its impact on Consumer Protection Act proceedings.Analysis:1. The complainants filed a complaint seeking repayment of FDR amounts, interest, compensation for mental harassment, and litigation costs. The opposite party withheld the deposited amounts on maturity without providing any valid reason, leading to a deficiency in service claim by the complainants.2. The opposite party defended by stating that they were declared a sick industrial unit and were unable to repay due to closure and takeover by another entity. The BIFR order dated 29-12-1998 declared the opposite party as a sick industry and appointed IFCI to assess viability for revival.3. The Commission reviewed the submissions and records, considering the implications of the BIFR order on the Consumer Protection Act proceedings. Referring to a previous case, it was established that the mere declaration of the opposite party as a sick industrial unit does not justify staying the Consumer Protection Act proceedings for refund and interest due on the FDR amounts.4. The Commission found in favor of the complainants, directing the opposite party to refund the principal amount along with the agreed interest from the due date, pay litigation costs, and comply within one month. The order highlighted the deficiency in service by the opposite party in withholding the maturity amounts without a valid reason, emphasizing the need for prompt repayment.In conclusion, the judgment favored the complainants, emphasizing the obligation of the opposite party to repay the deposited amounts and interest, despite being declared a sick industrial unit. The decision underscored the importance of consumer protection rights and prompt resolution of financial disputes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
