West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/80/2020

M/S. Tirupati Enterprise - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDFC First Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bikram Sarkar

16 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT - II (CENTRAL)
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/80/2020
( Date of Filing : 26 Feb 2020 )
 
1. M/S. Tirupati Enterprise
17,:ake Temple Road, Kolkata-700029,Rep. by Santanu Dey
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. IDFC First Bank Ltd.
164B,Ballygunge Circular Road, 1st Floor, P.S.Ballygunge,Kolkata-700019 and 1st Floor,Saket Building,44,Park Street,Kolkata-700016.
2. Aakash Jaiswal
164B,Ballygunge Circular Road, 1st Floor, P.S.Ballygunge,Kolkata-700019.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Bikram Sarkar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 16 Mar 2020
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.  02       Dated :    16.03.2020

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

            Today is fixed for admission hearing.

            Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant who submits that being a partnership firm complainant approached the OP-1 Bank for business loan to the tune of Rs. 8.25 Crores with tenor of 12 months and the complainant repaid the loan amount within the stipulated period. He further submits that OP-1 refused and expressed their inability to enhance the credit limit for which the complainant approached HDFC Bank for sanction of Rs.10 Crores. Ultimately, the OP-1 without the consent of the complainant firm renewed Cash Credit Account and the OP-1 Bank unjustifiably demanded to pay pre-penalty @ 2% of sanction limit of Rs.8.25 Crores amounting to Rs.19,47,000/- including GST and renewal charges @ 0.25%. In course of hearing, the ld. Advocate for the complainant further submits that the OP-2 being the official of OP-1 misguided and misrepresented the complainant firm for which switchover would not be allowed under the policy of OP-1 Bank, on the contrary, the OP-1 Bank unlawfully demanded huge amount from the complainant firm. Such acts and activities of the OPs are tantamount to unfair trade practice.

            Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant as well as on perusal of the complaint, we find that complainant is a partnership firm and obtained loan for commercial purpose. There is no averment in the complaint petition that the firm is carrying out business for earning livelihood of its partners by means of self-employment. It is purely for a commercial purpose and not for self-employment. Thus, the complainant firm may not get the benefit of the explanation of Under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, there is nothing on the record to show that the complainant wanted to obtain loan for self-employment.

            Based on the above discussion, we are not inclined to admit the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine, Hence,

ORDERED

            That the complaint is not admitted and dismissed in limine. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly]
MEMBER
 

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.