Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Complaint Case No. 421/2011. Case: Winner Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberComplaint Case No. 421/2011
Party NameWinner Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.
JudgesN.P. Kaushik, Member (J)
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 11; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d)
Judgement DateMarch 31, 2017
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Judgment:

N.P. Kaushik, Member (J)

  1. Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant is a company engaged in the business of construction. Somewhere in November 2009, ICICI Bank Ltd. (in short the OP) approached the complainant with an offer of opening credit limits. Complainant submitted that till then he had been enjoying credit facility with HDFC Bank where the limits granted to him were to the tune of Rs. 25 Crores and a cash credit facility of Rs. 3 Crores. The offer made to the complainant by the OP was to switch over the bank accounts to the OP from HDFC Bank and sanction a cash credit facility of Rs. 6 Crores with a bank guarantee limit of Rs. 33 Crores. Formalities required in his behalf were accordingly completed by 31.12.2009. A current account of the complainant was opened by the OP in the first week of March 2010.

  2. Grievance of the complainant is that he received a cheque dated 09.02.2010 for an amount of Rs. 74,50,301/- from one of his clients. Complainant deposited said cheque in his accounts opened with the OP. On 09.02.2010, an officer of the OP named Ms. Smriti asked the complainant for a stock statement, insurance and a letter from HDFC Bank stating outstanding balance. Complainant contends that the OP started indulging in dilatory tactics and did not come with the proposal of the upholding credit limits. Complainant contends that he was put to loss of Rs. 35,54,205/-.

  3. Defence raised by the OP is that the complaint itself was not maintainable for the reason that the bank guarantee and cash credit facilities were taken by the complainant for commercial purposes alone. On merits OP submitted that the complainant caused immense delay in providing the details of outstanding balance lying with the HDFC Bank. OP contends that the complainant with a malafide intension tried to utilize cash credit limits from both the banks. OP however submitted that the cash credit account of the complainant was opened in January 2010. Any delay in disbursement of the limits was due to the negligence and careless attitude of the complainant.

  4. Parties filed affidavits in support of their rival contentions and also placed on record their arguments in writing.

  5. I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant Sh. Ankur Mahendru Advocate and the counsel for the OP Sh. Hemant Gupta Advocate, at length. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the OP filed an application under order VII rule 11...

To continue reading

Request your trial