Explained| Can post office/bank be held liable for the fraud or wrongs committed by its employees?
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna* and BR Gavai, JJ has held that the post office/bank can
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna* and BR Gavai, JJ has held that the post office/bank can
Supreme Court: In a case where a bank employee was dismissed from services despite lack of evidence, the bench of KM Joseph
Supreme Court: Addressing a case of dismissal of a Bank clerk for breaching the trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as
Supreme Court: In an interesting case where one SBI account holder was left with a balance of Rs. 59/- only in his
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that an amendment having retrospective operation which has
Supreme Court: In a case where the Rajasthan High Court had permitted the respondent employee who is facing disciplinary proceedings to represent
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., directed the Indian Bank to refund the 25% auction
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJ., Surya Kant* and Hima Kohli, JJ., held that the Bank is not the
Kerala High Court: M.R. Anitha, J., decided whether gifts given to the bride during marriage by parents be covered under ‘Dowry’ or
by Deepanshi Gupta*and Aadesh Shinde**
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi: Medha Arya, MM (NI Act-03), resolved the dispute pertaining to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ., addressed a pertinent issue of whether the rent act
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and Amit B. Borkar, JJ., addressees the present matter while explaining the existence
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon, JJ., held that the pawnor, merely by his act
Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., reiterated the position of law laid down in the decision of Vandana Tyagi v. GNCTD, [WP
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Vishwanath (Presiding Member) upheld the State Commission’s Order. Petitioner/Complainant who was an account holder of
Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of A. Rajasheker Reddy and T. Vinod Kumar, JJ., dismissed a petition challenging the sale notice
“If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear.”
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) expressed that: Law is settled that illegal and forceful means cannot be
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh, JJ., allowed the petition seeking writ of mandamus