SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The Manager The Maharashtra State … vs Farmer Bank Employees … on 14 November, 2019

Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

1

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8606 OF 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.5413 of 2019)

THE MANAGER, THE MAHARASHTRA STATE
COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. …Appellant

VERSUS

FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.8607-08 OF 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos.5414-5415 of 2019)

THE FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. …Appellant

VERSUS

THE MANAGER, THE MAHARASHTRA STATE
COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Signature Not Verified Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2019.11.14
17:26:56 IST
Reason:

1. Leave granted.

Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

2

2. These Appeals arise out of (i) the judgment and order dated

08.02.2018 passed in First Appeal No. 255 of 2016 and (ii) order dated

24.09.2018 passed in Review Application No. 333 of 2018 in said First

Appeal by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi (‘the National Commission’, for short).

3. The Appellant-Bank is the apex bank of all District Central

Cooperative Banks in State of Maharashtra and is also a scheduled bank in

terms of the SectionBanking Regulation Act, 1949. In response to an

advertisement published by the Respondent No.2 (Nagpur Improvement

Trust) offering an extent of land admeasuring 2709.701 square metres

consisting of 14 plots, the Appellant made an application and was allotted

said land on 02.11.1973 against the premium of Rs.90,300/-. One of the

conditions for allotment was that the plot shall be used for residential

purposes. The possession of the plot was immediately handed over. Soon

thereafter, the Appellant applied for variation in sub-division and requested

that the entire land be divided into 16 plots instead of 14 plots as was

initially contemplated. The request was allowed and the land was sub-

divided into 16 plots.

4. The Appellant, thereafter, constructed 28 tenements on 14 plots out

of 16 plots while the other two plots were kept vacant. With the idea of
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

3

making tenements available to the persons working with the Appellant in

the category of peons, applications were invited from interested persons. It

appears that only 19 persons satisfied the requirements and therefore 9

persons belonging to the category of clerks were also accommodated. All

the 28 tenements were thus allotted to 28 employees of the Appellant

sometime in March 1976. Upto the stage of allotment not a single paisa

was paid by any of the employees. These employees were given the

facility of financial support by the Appellant where interest was charged at

concessional rate and home loans were made available to them.

5. Though the allotment of said 28 tenements was done in March

1976 itself and possession was given, the Society of the employees did not

get any lease executed as there were existing loans which were yet to be

cleared by each of the employees. The lease in respect of the entire extent

of land was therefore got executed in the name of the Appellant by

Respondent No.2, the period of lease being 03.11.1973 to 31.03.2004.

After the loans were repaid, the Executive Committee of the Appellant

passed Resolution No.3 on 21.1.2004 resolving that since the loans were

repaid, the tenements and the concerned plots be transferred in the names

of those employees or their legal heirs by completing all legal formalities.

Though, the Resolution was passed on 21.01.2004, the formalities could
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

4

not be completed and as the period of lease had come to an end, the lease

was got renewed from Respondent No.2 in favour of the Appellant on

15.02.2011 for further period of 30 years from 01.4.2004 to 31.03.2034.

6. On 16.04.2012 the Society of the employees i.e. the Respondent

No.1 herein filed Complaint No.10 of 2012 before the State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur (‘the State Commission’, for

short) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) submitting inter alia that:-

“5. The management of Non-applicant No.2 bank decided
to undertake housing scheme for the employees working as
peons with Non-applicant No.2. And, therefore, in
response to an advertisement in local newspaper in the
year 1973 published by the Non-applicant No.1 offering
residential plots to the general public in the old Subhedar
Layout locality under Khasara No.58 59, known as
Sakkardara Street expansion scheme, the Non-applicant
No.2 contracted the Non-applicant No.1 to purchase 14
plots for its employees in peon category. The proposal of
Non-applicant No.2 was accepted by Non-applicant No.1
and 14 plots bearing Nos.83 to 96 were allotted to Non-
applicant No.2 Bank for a total consideration of
Rs.90,300/- (Rupees Ninety thousand Three Hundred Only)
admeasuring 2709.701 sqr. Mtr i.e. 29,167 sqr. Ft. of area.
Initially it was proposed by the Board of Directors of the
Non-applicant No.2 to construct 2 tenements on each plot
totalling 28 tenements. However, the then Local manager
at the Regional Office, Nagpur of Non-applicant No.2 got
the 14 plots divided into 16 plots with the approval of Non-
applicant No.1. The plots were renumbered as 83-96 + 89A
and 90A.

6. The Non-applicant No.2 started collecting monthly
subscription from those employees who registered their
names to participate in the scheme, with a view to create
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

5

their 10% contributory fund to avial 90% of loan facility as
against the cost of their respective tenements.

7. Thereafter, Non-applicant No.2 engaged M/s Planarch
an Architectural firm and got the tenement plans sanctioned
from Non-applicant No.1. The Non-applicant No.2 then
engaged Shri N.T. Vyas, a building contractor, to construct
28 tenements with its own funds. However, the Non-
applicant No.2 restricted the construction of tenements to
28 only instead of 32 and 14 plots and 2 plots remained
vacant as because the Board of Director of Non-applicant
No.2 Bank at Head Office at Mumbai did not approve the
subdivision of plots from 14 to 16.

8. At the time of completion of construction of 28
tenements, only 19 peons confirmed their participation and,
therefore, 9 employees from clerical cadre were
accommodated in the scheme and allotment of tenements
was done in March 1976. In fact, if the Non-applicant
No.2 would have constructed 4 more tenements, the same
could have been allotted to those desirous employees in
future. However, for the reason best known, the Non-
applicant No.2 kept 2 plots vacant, for the past 38 years.

9. The Non-applicant No.2 initially incurred all expenses
relating to completion of the project as mentioned below:-

Sr.No. Particular Amount (Rs.) Security Total (Rs.)
Deposit
1. Cost of Land 90,300.00 — 90,300.00
2 Ground Rent 1,806.00 — 1,806.00
(1974-75)
3 Security — 800.00 800.00
Deposit
(NIT)
4. Steel 47,845.48 — 47,845.48
5 Cement 87,634.40 — 87,634.40
6 Contractor’s 3,69,855.19 — 3,69,855.19
Bill
7 Architect 19,364.80 — 19,364.80
Feed
8 Supervisor’s 3,600 — 3,600
charges

Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

6

9 Water Meter 1,736.00 3,920.00 5,656.00
10 Electricity 3,280.00 1,400.00 4,680.00
Connection
11 Debentures — 2,800.00 2,800.00
Purchased for
Electricity
12 Other 116.00 — 116.00
expenses
Total 6,25,537.87 8,920.00 6,34,457.87

The total cost of the project including cost of land was
worked out at Rs.6,34,457.87 and by dividing this amount
by 28 the cost of each tenement was worked out at
Rs.22,659.20 which obviously includes the proportionate
cost of 2 vacant plots admeasuring 3600 sq.ft. of area. The
Board of Directors of the Non-applicant No.2 Bank in its
meeting held on 12.01.1977 approved the cost of project
and cost of each tenement and also approved housing loan
to each employee as per their eligibility. It was also
resolved by the Board of Directors to transfer the entire
property in the name of society along with loan amount
sanctioned to 28 members and started effecting recovery of
loan through society via their monthly salaries. However,
due to sub-division of 14 plots into 16 plots and
constructing only 28 tenements, every member had to
sacrifice the benefit of 12 sq.ft. of permissible construction
are even after paying the cost and suffered a permanent
irreparable loss.

11. As stated earlier, the Non-appliant No.2 paid the price
of 16 plots. The expenditure incurred on construction and
for other purposes was initially borne by Non-applicant
No.2. However, both the Non-applicant No.1 and Non-
applicant No.2 cheated the Complainant and its members
by executing the lease deed of 16 plots for a period of 30
years commencing from 03.11.1973 to 31.03.2004 in
favour of Non-applicant No.2. This document of lease was
executed on 26.04.1979 i.e. 3 years after handing over the
possession of tenements in March 1976 and further after its
own decision of 12.01.1977 taken by the Board of
Directors of Non-applicant No.2 Bank to transfer the
property in favour of Complainant Society. However, the
annual lease rent is being paid by the Complainant society
since beginning and up till now over Rs.70,000/- are paid
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

7

towards rent without any title to the land. Now, therefore,
the Complainant or its members do not possess any title to
the property they are occupying even though they have
discharged their loan liability way back on their respective
superannuation or on the expiry of term of repayment of
loan. Out of 28 allottees, 20 members have died and the
question of succession to the property has arisen before the
Complainant Society. However, the Complainant Society
is totally helpless to resolve the issue as the title of the said
16 plots of land is with the Non-applicant No.2.”

In para 13 of the complaint, various options were suggested by

Respondent No.1, one of the suggested options namely option ‘e’ being:-

“The Non-applicant No.2 could have constructed 4
more tenements on remaining two vacant plots out of
16 plots and could have allotted them to the interested
employees easily as because a large number of
employees of Non-applicant No.2 have sought housing
loan benefit from Non-applicant No.2 thereafter for
their housing needs. The Non-applicant No.2 could
have also refunded the cost of two vacant plots
originally shared by 28 employees or adjusted to their
loan accounts.”

The prayers made in the Complaint were as under:-

“i. Direct the Non-applicant No.1 to renew
the lease of 16 Plots No. 83 to 96 and 89A and
90A in favour of the Complainant-Society
within two months from the date of order.

ii. Direct the Non-applicant No. 2 to pay the
cost for renewal of lease of 16 plots to the
Complainant-Society immediately as and when
demanded by the Complainant Society.

iii. Direct the Non-applicant No. 2 to pay the
price of two vacant plots, if it desires to retain
for construction, as per prevailing market price
which amounts to Rs.98,00,000/- (Rupees
Ninety Eight Lakhs Only).

Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

8

iv. Direct the Non-applicant No. 3 to accept
and register the document of Sale Deed that
would be executed by Complainant Society in
favour of each member or legal heirs of the
deceased members free of stamp duty and
registration charges as per Government
notification dated 14.03.1980.

v. Direct the Non-applicant No.1 and 2 to
pay Rs.1,00,000/- each to Complainant Society
for harassment and mental agony caused to
members over the years.

vi. Saddle the cost of Rs.20,000/- on Non-
applicant No.2 bank for filing the complaint.”

7. In its written statement the Appellant denied the claim made by the

Respondent No.1 and submitted that the dispute raised by the Respondent

No.1 could not be a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Act and,

in any case, the complaint was barred by time as per Section 24A of the

Act.

8. It was observed by the State Commission that the entire cost of

construction of tenements and other charges were paid by the concerned

employees and as such nothing was due from those employees; that the

Appellant was a service provider in terms of the Act and the complaint was

maintainable. Finding the Appellant to be deficient in rendering of service

in that it had not got the lease deed of the plots executed in favour of the
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

9

Respondent No.1 well-in-time and had thereby caused loss to the

Respondent No.1, the complaint was allowed with following directions:-

“ii. It is directed that OP No.2 shall take
suitable steps to get renewed registered the
lease deed of plot Nos. 83 to 96, 89A 90A
described in the complaint through the OP No.1
NIT, in favour of the complainant society within
two months from receipt of copy of this order.

iii. The complainant shall bear expenses of
renewal and registration of that lease deed as per
the rates applicable as on 26.04.1979 and the OP
No.2 Bank shall bear the additional expenses for
the same as required on the date of the renewal
and registration of that lease deed.

iv. The OP No.2 bank shall also pay
compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant
towards physical and mental harassment caused
to its members and shall also pay cost of this
complaint amounting to Rs.5,000/- to the
complainant.”

9. The Appellant, being aggrieved, filed First Appeal No. 255 of 2016

before the National Commission. Submissions raised by the Appellant

were noted as under:-

“5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record. Learned counsel for the
appellant stated that the State Commission has
given total financial responsibility for getting the
lease deed executed in favour of the Respondent
No.1. It was also stated as the matter was under
litigation, the bank has already got the lease
extended for another 30 years from the
Respondent No.2 in favour of the original
allottee i.e. bank. Now, the only question
remains that the lessee is to be transferred to the
Respondent No.1 Society. It was also contended
by the learned counsel that out of the 16 plots
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

10

only 14 plots have been utilized and the two
plots are still vacant and have not been allotted
to any employee. Thus, these two plots remain
the property of the bank and that cannot be
leased to the Respondent No.1 Society.

6. Therefore, it is not possible to implement
the order of the State Commission fully. It is
further argued for the appellant that the State
Commission has ordered all the expenses in
registration of the lease deed to be borne by the
appellant bank over and above the expenses of
registration in 1979. It is a common known
practice that the purchaser has to bear the burden
of stamp duty and registration charges.
Therefore, even if the lease deed is transferred in
the name of Respondent Society, the expenses
are to be borne by the society or the Society
members and not the appellant bank. It was
requested by the learned counsel that on both
these counts, the order of the State Commission
is not justified and needs to be set aside.”

The discussion was as under:-

“10. I have given a thoughtful consideration to
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and have examined the record. It
is true that out of 14 plots, the bank has got 16
plots made, however on the same land 14 plots
have been allotted and 2 plots have been left out.
The State Commission has passed the order in
respect of the plot Nos. 83 to 96, 89A to 90A.
The question is now of transferring the lease
deed of Respondent No.1 and its members.
Lease deed has been renewed in the name of the
Bank, there should be no difficulty in
transferring the lease to Respondent No.1
Society or its members as the case may be
according to the provisions of rules of NIT or
any other relevant law.

Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

11

11. So far as the question of expenditure for
transferring of lease deed is concerned, in my
view, as the registration will be done under the
current law and the current law does not exempt
Cooperative Society for any stamp duty,
therefore, the stamp duty will have to be paid by
the consumers as is the law of the land.
However, as the Respondent No.1 has lost the
opportunity of getting free registration done
under the old law, due to deficiency and delay
caused by the action or omission of the appellant
bank, the appellant bank is ordered to share 50%
of the total expenditure including registration
charges and the stamp duty or any other
charges/expenses in connection with the
registration of lease deed in favour of the
Respondent No.1 Society. Accordingly, the
order dated 27.01.2016 of the State Commission
be complied with by both the parties within a
period of three months. The compensation and
cost as awarded by the State Commission is
upheld.”

10. In this Appeal, we heard Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, learned Advocate

for the Appellant, Mr. Kishor Ram Lambat, learned Advocate for the

Respondent No.1 and Mr. Satyajit A Desai, learned Advocate for the

Respondent No.2.

11. The facts on record clearly indicate that neither the Respondent

No.1 nor any of its members were involved when the initial allotment was

made by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Appellant, when 16 plots

were carved out from the allotted land and 28 tenements were constructed.

The tenements were constructed by the Appellant to take care of the needs
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

12

of its employees for housing. The facility of loans was also extended to

each of the allottees and the finance was made available at comfortable

rate of interest. It is accepted that there was absolutely no profit motive

behind the exercise and the Appellant did not even demand any interest in

respect of funds employed by it and what was sought to be recovered was

only the element of actual costs incurred by it.

12. It is also clear from the record that the Resolution to transfer the

land in favour of the employees or the legal heirs was passed by the

Appellant on 21.01.2004. There is nothing on record to indicate that any

requisition or demands were made by the Society to have the land

transferred and yet there was any delay on part of the Appellant in acting in

terms of the Resolution. There was, thus, no deficiency on part of the

Appellant or refusal on its part to act in terms of the aforesaid Resolution

dated 12.01.1977. If, as a result of any delay in execution of the document

in favour of the Society for which the Appellant was not responsible, the

Society would now be required to pay stamp duty at an enhanced rate, that

by itself does not give any entitlement to seek relief against the Appellant.

13. It is true that the tabular chart extracted in para 9 of the complaint

denotes that the cost of land as well as the actual expenditure incurred in

erecting 28 tenements aggregated to Rs.6,34,457.87, which was divided by

28, being number of tenements, to arrive at what would be the actual cost
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

13

relatable to each of those tenements. After receiving financial

accommodation and other advantages, each one of the tenement holders

had made good such amount. It was, therefore, contended that all the

tenement holders together had some interest in said two vacant plots.

However, the documents on record do not indicate any intention on

part of the Appellant that any interest in respect of said two plots was

intended to be created. The idea was to make available tenements to the

concerned on no profit no loss basis and not to let them have those two

plots and enable them to profiteer out of the transaction. That is precisely

why one of the alternatives suggested by the Respondent No.1 to resolve

the dispute was option ‘e’ in para 13 as extracted hereinabove. The relief

in the complaint gives measure of the value of those plots which was stated

to be in the region of Rs.98 lakhs in the year 2012. The nature of reliefs

claimed by Respondent No.1 indicates that apart from 28 tenements and

the land appurtenant thereto, the Respondent No.1 was also desirous of

securing interest in respect of said two plots.

14. As stated above, it was never the intent of the Appellant and there

is nothing on record to even suggest that the idea was to transfer interest in

respect of those two plots in favour of the employees or the Society formed

by the employees. This issue was squarely raised before the National
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

14

Commission but the matter was not considered at all. Be that as it may, we

have gone through the record and do not find any indication or even a

whisper that any decision was taken to transfer interest in relation to those

two plots as well.

15. The fact of the matter however remains that some contribution

towards cost of land was made by all the tenement holders. If the amount

representing cost of land was Rs.90,300/- and had there been 32 tenements,

individual share of every tenement holder would have come to

approximately Rs.2,822/-. However, dividing said amount by number 28,

the contribution that each of the tenement holder actually paid was

Rs.3,225/-; which would mean that roughly Rs.400/- extra were charged

from each one of them. Accepting the plea taken by the Respondent No.1

in option ‘e’ in para 13 as mentioned hereinabove, interest of justice, in our

view, would be met if the appellant is directed to make over to every

tenement holder a sum of Rs.10,000/- in compensation for having

recovered Rs.400/- over and above what logically could have been

recovered from each one of them. It is, of course, left to the appellant

either pay to each tenement holder a sum of Rs.10,000/- or transfer the

entire land to the Society.

16. It was seriously argued that the role played by the appellant was

not that of a service provider and all that it had done was to extend a
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

15

helping hand so that its employees could satisfy their housing needs. It

was also submitted that there was absolutely no profit element and in fact

the appellant had incurred considerable expenditure towards interest

burden for having invested some money over a period of time which

element was never sought to be recovered. It is, thus, seriously disputed

and submitted that the instant matter could not have been gone into by fora

under the provisions of the Act. However, at this length of time, we do not

deem it appropriate to relegate the Respondent No.1 to any other remedy.

Therefore, in peculiar circumstances of the case, we have proceeded on the

footing that the matter was maintainable before the fora under the Act. But

as stated earlier, there was absolutely no deficiency on part of the

Appellant and no justification in imposing any costs and directing the

Appellant to pay compensation to the Respondent No.1.

17. We, therefore, allow these Appeals and set aside the orders passed

by the State Commission and the National Commission. In substitution of

the directions issued, we direct:-

a) The appellant shall pay to each of the tenement holders (or to

the heirs/successors, in case the original tenement holders are

no more) a sum of Rs.10,000/- within three weeks from today;

OR
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

16

in the alternative the Appellant shall execute an appropriate

deed conveying interest in favour of the Respondent No.1 in

respect of 28 tenements and the entire land admeasuring

2709.701 square meters, as stated hereinabove, within six

weeks.

b) If the Appellant pays to each of the tenement holders (or to the

heirs/successors, in case the original tenement holders are no

more) a sum of Rs.10,000/-, the Respondent No.1-Society

shall be entitled to have an appropriate deed conveying

interest in favour of the Respondent No.1 in respect of 28

tenements and the proportionate land appurtenant thereto

within six weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Appellant

shall continue to have right, title and interest in respect of

portion of land representing those two plots over which no

tenements have been constructed and it shall continue to have

propriety interest and shall be entitled to deal with that

portion.

c) In either case the stamp duty in respect of such documents

shall be borne by the Respondent No.1 and the concerned
Civil Appeal No.8606 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No. 5413 of 2019 etc.
SectionThe Manager, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Farmer Bank
Employees cooperative housing Society Ltd. Ors.

17

documents shall be executed by the Appellant and the

Respondent No.2 in favour of the Respondent No.1.

18. The Appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.

……………………….J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

……………………….J.

(Indira Banerjee)
New Delhi;

November 14, 2019.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation