TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The petitioners had loan taken from the respondent Bank on two accounts, one for a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- and the other for ₹ 3,00,000/-. It would appear that the Bank had disbursed a sum of ₹ 1.47 lacs and the balance amount was not released to the petitioners. It was their case, in the complaint laid before the District Forum, that due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice. Another ground given was that the suit was filed by the Bank for recovery on the premise that the Tribunal could not go into that question. Thirdly it was filed by the bank for recovery on the premise that the Tribunal could not go into the question. Thirdly, it was stated that in a letter addressed b the petitioners to the Bank that they had admitted that the failure to pay the instalments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the reason that the issue before that Civil Court is not the deficiency in the service unless that is specifically raised as defence in the suit. However, we think that is one of defaults in the payment of the instalments. Under those circumstances, merely filing of the suit by the Bank does not put a bar on the Tribunal to go into the merits in the complaint. Each case requires examination o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
