https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103179 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, Bank of Baroda, stating that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Junagarh lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the cause of action arose in Rajkot. Bank of Baroda was not held responsible for the mishandling of the draft application as the draft was not in their favor, and the complainants failed to follow specific instructions. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and directed each party to bear their own costs, setting aside the Forum's order. en-us Mon, 30 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103179 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, Bank of Baroda, stating that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Junagarh lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the cause of action arose in Rajkot. Bank of Baroda was not held responsible for the mishandling of the draft application as the draft was not in their favor, and the complainants failed to follow specific instructions. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and directed each party to bear their own costs, setting aside the Forum's order. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103179