Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (2.32 seconds)
Documents citing Margaret Lalita Samuel vs Indo Commercial Bank Ltd on 25 September, 1978

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment ... vs A.B. Anantha Krishnan (Died), P. Obul ... on 6 June, 2002

16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in UNION BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM VS. T.J.STEPHEN , which also in turn relied on the decision of MARGARET LALITHA VS. INDO COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED . That was a case in which the defence taken was that the defendants are not liable to pay the amount even though they have executed a continuing guarantee. The continuing guarantee was executed on 21.8.1970. According to the Bank, the debt was kept alive on account of the acknowledgement of the liability of the debt by the first defendant. The plea of defendants 2 and 3 was that the acknowledgement made by the first defendant is not binding on defendants 2 and 3 and so as regards defendants 2 and 3, there is no cause of action for the Bank since the same has been barred by limitation. The facts of the case are not identical to that of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - K R Pandian - Full Document

K. Raja Rao vs A.P. Industrial Development ... on 4 January, 2013

4. On behalf of the appellant-petitioner it was argued before the learned single Judge that the guarantee bonds executed by the petitioner are co-terminus with the directorship of the petitioner and the moment he had resigned as director on 16.10.1989, the guarantee bonds shall be deemed to have been revoked. It was also argued that since the personal bonds executed by Dr.A.K. Chaterjee were not revoked by the Corporation till 15.11.1994 and continue to be in force even after the petitioner had resigned as director on 16.10.1989 proceedings ought to have been initiated against Dr.A.K. Chaterjee and no action could have been taken on the personal guarantee bonds executed by the petitioner in place of Dr. A.K. Chaterjee. It was vehemently argued before the learned single Judge that since no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner subsequent to the demand notice dated 28.3.1990, which was denied by the petitioner, the distraint order dated 15.7.1996 is without jurisdiction, even though there was a subsequent demand on 28.5.1992 because the claim of the Corporation was barred by limitation and it cannot be permitted to take recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in MARGARET LALITA SAMUEL v. INDO COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1 and a decision of the Division Bench decision of this Court in B.C.MULAJKAR v. STATE2. It was also argued that there was no determination of the liability of the petitioner to the Corporation determined in any of the demands issued to the petitioner including the demands issued under the Revenue Recovery Act and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

United Commercial Bank, Bangalore vs B.M. Mahadeva Babu And Another on 11 December, 1991

Further however, it is nobody's case that a guarantee letter in question was at any time put an end to by defendant No. 2 in the way and manner stipulated in the guarantee letter. Under the circumstances it is clear that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Margaret v. Commercial Bank Ltd. , would apply to the facts of this case on all force. Looked at from this point of view also it is absolutely clear that the suit against defendant No. 2 cannot be said to be barred by time at all. For the reasons stated herein above, I am of the view that, the lower Court has erred in reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff's suit is barred by time as against defendant No. 2.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

C.P. Sreelal vs District Collector And Ors. on 4 January, 2007

The security is for whatever amount that is due to the Bank from the principal-debtor. So long as the agreement Ext. A2 is alive and in force defendants 2 and 3 are liable for the amount due to the Bank because they have secured the amount by executing the agreement. The effect of such an agreement has been considered very clearly by the Supreme Court in Margarnet Lalita v. Indo Commercial Bank Ltd. The Supreme Court observed thus:
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - S Jagan - Full Document

Ms. Vineeta Maheshwari vs State Bank Of India And Anr on 6 January, 2025

39. The Respondent No.1 on the other hand has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Margaret Lalita v. Indo Commercial Bank Limited [AIR 1979 SC 102]. It is the argument of the Respondent that as decided in the aforesaid case the liability of the guarantor is limited to transactions prior to the revocation of the guarantee. This case emphasized that a guarantor can revoke a continuing guarantee for future transactions, but remains liable for those prior to revocation. However, in the present case, the respondent executed a subsequent irrevocable and unconditional guarantee on 29.03.2014, superseding the earlier guarantee. This 2014 Guarantee clearly waived any right to unilateral revocation, binding the guarantor until all liabilities of the corporate debtor were settled. The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 689, 663 of 2024 -29- aforesaid precedent is distinguishable because the 2014 Guarantee is irrevocable and such right has been explicitly granted by the Respondent No.1.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Keshari Engineering Works vs Bank Of India on 2 January, 1990

In Mrs. Margret Lalita Samuel v. Indo Commercial Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 1979 SC 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case of this nature Article 115 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply as the over draft account was alive up to 29-5-1952 and thus the suit which was filed on 8-11-1954 was not barred under law of Limitation. In that case, the Supreme Court further laid down the law with regards to the liability of the guarantor where the guarantee is a continuing one. In this case, a claim was made by the Bank dated 18-7-1989 (Ext. I) and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the suit was barred under the law of limitation.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Male Venkateswarlu And Anr. vs State Bank Of India, Ongole Branch And ... on 9 June, 2005

As already observed in the decision of the Privy Council in Pratap Singh's v. Keshavlal, (supra) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Margaret Lalita v. Indo Commercial Bank Limited, (supra) deal with different aspects and hence it cannot be said that there is any conflict whatsoever or it cannot be said that some contrary view was taken by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the aforesaid decision and hence in view of the same this Court has no hesitation in holding that the decision in Margaret Lalita v. Indo Commercial Bank Limited, (supra) is the binding decision on this Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next