https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169214 A forged covering letter dated 26 August 1991 was found to have been the foundation of the respondent's claim, and once that fabrication was exposed, the consumer commission's orders could not survive because fraud vitiated the basis of the decision. On the collection instructions proved on record, the ICC Uniform Rules did not require the appellant bank to secure co-acceptance from the foreign bank, as the collection order contained no clear instruction to do so and the presenting bank's limited role was misread by the commission. The bank was therefore not liable for deficiency in service, and the complaint was rejected with costs. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:02:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169214 A forged covering letter dated 26 August 1991 was found to have been the foundation of the respondent's claim, and once that fabrication was exposed, the consumer commission's orders could not survive because fraud vitiated the basis of the decision. On the collection instructions proved on record, the ICC Uniform Rules did not require the appellant bank to secure co-acceptance from the foreign bank, as the collection order contained no clear instruction to do so and the presenting bank's limited role was misread by the commission. The bank was therefore not liable for deficiency in service, and the complaint was rejected with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169214