Recent Case Study

Case: Mazhar Ilahi vs India Bulls & Ors.
Status: Processing

Arbitrary increase in the interest rate by Financer is Unfair Trade Practice

The another contention of the Borrower was this that increase of interest rate from 13% to 21% is without any basis and guidelines of National Housing Bank. On which the Financer submitted the guidelines of National Housing Bank dated 02.06.2009. On perusal of the same, State Commission observed that in the present case respondent could not show the guiding principles which justified the increase of interest rate from 13% to even 23%. The Counsel for the Financer failed to furnish the Honorable State Commission that how rate of interest are being determined by the Financer and related interest rate governing factors. Thus, Honorable Commission concluded that “increase in interest rate is arbitrary on the part of the Financer and definitely could be termed as Unfair Trade Practice”.

Hence, by allowing the appeal of the appellant, Honorable Commission ordered the Respondent to charge only 13% interest rate on the due amount, and the appellant was awarded Rs. 1 Lakh for the compensation against the Unfair Trade Practice committed by the Respondent and Rs. 20, 000/- for cost of proceedings.

Case: Mazhar Ilahi vs India Bulls & Ors.
Status: Solved

Getting signed both the Agreement which relates to different rate of interest is Unfair Trade Practice

In the present case, the Borrower (Appellant) was get to sign Part I and II of the Agreement between the Borrower and the Financer. The two parts were related to different rate of interest, hence Honorable State Commission held that “This practice of getting signed both the Agreement is Unfair Trade Practice on the face of it”. The (Financer) Respondent contended that the loan was sanctioned on Floating rate of interest which was accepted by the State Commission but the Commission held that “getting signed part I and II both of the schedule- A is unfair trade practice on the part of the Financer”