NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2065/2010

UCO BANK & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. JAGDISH CHANDRA SAHA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. I.S. CHAUHAN & ASSOCIATES

07 Jun 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2065 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 24/02/2010 in Appeal No. 237/2009 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. UCO BANK & ORS.AB-14, Salt Lake Sector-I, P.S.- Bidhannagar (North)Kolkata - 700064West Bengal2. THE CHAIRMAN, UCO BANKRegional Office, Salt Lake, P.S. BidhannagarKolkata - 700001West Bengal3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UCO BANKRegional Office, Salt Lake, P.S. BidhannagarKolkataWest Bengal ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. DR. JAGDISH CHANDRA SAHA & ANR.CL-269, Sector-11, P.S.- Bidhannagar (East), Salt LakeKolkata - 700091West Bengal2. SMT. SANTI RANI SAHA, W/O. DR. JAGADISH SAHACL-269, Sector-11, P.S.- Bidhannagar (East), Salt LakeKolkata - 700091West Bengal ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 07 Jun 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

This revision petition was dismissed today in liminie, for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under: The conduct of the Bank in respect of deduction of income tax on the accrued interest every year is not consistent insofar as the Bank did not deduct the income tax on accrued interest in each year during the life of the fixed deposit. Hence the order of the State Commission, which has taken full notice of all other facts and circumstances, is justified and does not warrant any interference under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is, however, clarified that this order and that of the State Commission have been passed keeping in view the specific features of this case and shall not constitute a precedent.



......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER