1996 (7) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Division, Nagpur and (ii) State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Nagpur (respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively). The allegation in the complaint is that the applicant had opened one P.P.F. Account No. 2483 with the branch of respondent No. 2 at Jabalpur on 27-3-1980 and the same was transferred on 5-5-1986 to the respondent No. 2; that on 26-3-1992 the respondent No. 2 charged penalty of Rs. 660 called as revival charges for which the applicant raised its objections vide letter dated 5-6-1992; that the respondent No. 2 relying on the revival clause justified the penalty and the respondent No. 1 is also of the same view; that the applicant through this compensation application prayed that a sum of Rs. 607 wrongly and illegally recovered from him m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... will be decided on the next date i.e., 1-3-1996 without the presence of the parties and on the basis of the material available on record. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the respondent No. 1 filed its objec- tions and the applicant has filed his counter objections to those objections and on that basis the orders were reserved on that day. Without narrating all the objections regarding maintainability, the main contention of res- pondent No. 1 is that the provisions of M.R.T.P. Act, 1969 are not applicable to respondent No. 1. In this regard a Division Bench of this Commission in the matter of Gir Prasad v. Government of Uttar Pradesh [RJPE No.241 of 1995 dated 1-7-1996] has observed as under: "One is aware, that during the last few ....