Search Results for "unauthorized transactions"

99 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 99 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Court Orders Bank to Refund Rs. 76.9 Lakhs in Unauthorized Transaction Case. Judgment Reinforces Zero Liability for Customers Reporting Unauthorized Transactions Promptly

In a case involving unauthorized electronic banking transactions, the court ruled that the bank (Respondent No. 2) must refund Rs. 76,90,017/- to Phar...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Partially Allows Section 34 Petition Against Arbitral Award in Commodity Trading Dispute — Holds That Arbitral Tribunal Erred in Rejecting Claim for Unauthorized Trades Without Considering Evidence of Unauthorized Transactions.

The petitioner, Mrs. Kaberi Mondal, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging portions of an arbitr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Upholds Arbitral Award Holding Stockbroker Liable for Unauthorized Trades by Agent. Broker Failed to Prove Client Authorization for Disputed Trades, Resulting in Compensation of Rs.14,37,200/- to Client.

The case involves an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by IIFL Capital Services Limited (formerly IIFL Secu...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Arbitral Award in Stock Broker Dispute — No Patent Illegality Found. Claimant's claim for refund of margin money and compensation for unauthorized trades upheld as arbitrator's findings of fact are final under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The judgment concerns two arbitration petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a common arbitral award da...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Quashes Penal Back Billing Order in Electricity Theft Case — No Evidence of Tampering or Pilferage. Mere Fluctuation in Load Factor Does Not Attract Penal Provisions Under Clause 42.05 of Conditions of Supply of Electricity.

The petitioner, M/s Eureka Forbes Limited, a public limited company, owned a composite premises in Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bengaluru. In 2007, it...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Dismisses Petitions Challenging Arbitral Award in Stock Broker Dispute. Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal's Findings of Fact and Rejects Challenge Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The judgment concerns multiple arbitration petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral awa...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Subsequent Purchaser in Land Acquisition Case — Purchase After Section 4 Notification Confers No Right to Challenge Acquisition or Invoke Section 24 of 2013 Act.

The Supreme Court considered whether a purchaser of land after issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can invoke...