<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (3) TMI 526 - UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103608</link>
    <description>Postal officials issued National Savings Certificates to ineligible purchasers despite the restrictions in Rule 7 of the National Savings Certificates (6th Issue) Rules, 1961. Failure to scrutinise the application forms and reject ineligible requests at the issue stage constituted negligence and deficiency in service. Because the certificates were issued through the department&#039;s own mistake, the department remained liable at maturity and could not avoid restitution by relying on the purchasers&#039; ineligibility. The complainants were entitled to interest for the period their money remained blocked, together with compensation for inconvenience and loss, and the relief was modified accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 526 - UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103608</link>
      <description>Postal officials issued National Savings Certificates to ineligible purchasers despite the restrictions in Rule 7 of the National Savings Certificates (6th Issue) Rules, 1961. Failure to scrutinise the application forms and reject ineligible requests at the issue stage constituted negligence and deficiency in service. Because the certificates were issued through the department&#039;s own mistake, the department remained liable at maturity and could not avoid restitution by relying on the purchasers&#039; ineligibility. The complainants were entitled to interest for the period their money remained blocked, together with compensation for inconvenience and loss, and the relief was modified accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>