Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (2.89 seconds)
Documents citing Pandit Sri Chand And Ors vs M/S. Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand on 4 February, 1966

T. Raju Setty vs Bank Of Baroda on 20 December, 1990

"The learned trial judge has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Chand v. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 1427. In our view, the learned trial judge had not appreciated the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the said case. In that case, the Supreme Court has recognised that the liability of the surety is joint and several and if a guarantor seeks to enforce the surety bond against some only of the joint sureties, the other sureties will not on that account be discharged nor will release by the creditor of one of the them discharge the other. As pointed out by Dr. Banerjee, in our view, rightly, in that case the Supreme Court was concerned with the fact that three of the sureties appealed from the order of the lower appellate court an in that the appeal one of the appellants died and the Supreme Court had held that the appeal had abated because the representatives of the second appellant had not been brought on record. We accept the interpretation put by Dr. Banerjee that the appeal in that case had abated not because the release of sureties could not be taken as discharge of the others but that the appeal would have affected jointly the rights of the appellants who were three of the sureties. In our view, this decision is not an authority for the proposition that if the suit against one of the co-guarantors is allowed to be dismissed, then the suit against one of the co-guarantors should also be dismissed on the basis of the principles of res judicata as held by the learned trial judge."
Karnataka High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Suresh Chandra(Deceased) Thr. Lrs vs Parasram on 18 July, 2025

29. The decision of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad (supra) was followed in Pandit Sri Chand (supra) and the same principle of law has been adopted in a recent two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Goli Vijayalakshmi and Others vs. Yenduj Sathiraju (Dead) through LRs and Others25 where this Court declined to accept the argument that despite non-substitution of LRs of a deceased appellant, the other appellants could prosecute the appeal with the aid of Order XLI Rule 4 of CPC. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - P S Narasimha - Full Document

Mayno Soren vs Babu Lal Murmu [Died As Per Order Dated ... on 12 January, 2026

In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Chand v. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 142 it has been explained with respect to the tests applicable in considering whether an appeal abates in its entirety when the appeal has abated qua one of the respondents and it has also been observed that the case has to be examined in its facts and circumstance. It has been held as under: -
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... vs Kasturben Naranbhai Vadhia And Ors. on 25 November, 1971

The decision in Sri Chand v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1427 would not be helpful . In this context at page 1431, their Lordship have merely held that the mere facts that the obligation arising under a convenant may been force severally against all the convenantor does not make the liability of each covenantor distinct. It is true that in enforcement of the claim of the decree holder the properties belonging to the sureties individually may be sold separately. But that is because the properties were separately owned and not because the liability arose under district transaction. That is why it was held that the fact that the surety bond was enforceable under Section 37 and 138 of the Contract Act against each surety severally and that it was open to the creditor to release one or more of the joint sureties did not alter the true character of the adjudication of the Court when proceedings were commenced to enforce the convenant of the Board against all sureties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Omana vs Kesavan on 27 January, 2005

That decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Sri. Chand v. Jagdish Pershad (AIR 1966 SC 1427) and other cases. If the defendants had brought it to the notice of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, there was every possibility of the Courts below to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and to hold that there was abatement except when the surviving plaintiffs show reason that the rights of the 1st plaintiff has vested in the 2nd plaintiff or plaintiffs 2 and 3 together. Whether the 1st plaintiff has legal representatives to be impleaded or not are also matters which could have been gone into by the Trial Court. In view of the fact that I have already found that the plaintiffs have not obtained any title on the basis of Ext.A1 as a gift deed and that the 1st defendant has revoked the same during her lifetime and given the properties to defendants 2 and 3, it is unnecessary to consider this question in further detail and therefore this question is not answered in favour of the appellants.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sri Ram Prasad vs The State Bank Of Bikaner And Ors. on 21 March, 1972

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the suit Had abated against Sriniwas Murarka when all the legal representatives of the deceased were not brought on record within the prescribed period and no application has been made for setting aside the abatement. Reliance has been placed by him on State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, AIR 1962 SC 89; Sri Chand v. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 1427 and Swarau Singh Puran Singh v. Ramditta Badhawa (dead), AIR 1969 Punj and Har 216.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Haridas Roy And Anr. vs Calcutta Commercial Bank Ltd. (In ... on 9 March, 1972

21. Six other decisions of the Supreme Court and a Full Bench decision of this Court touching the point of abatement are also considered but they do not relate to the point at issue. They are: Union of India v. Ramcharan, ; Rameshwar Prasad v. Shyam Beharilal Jagannath, ; Union of India v. Sree Ram Bohra, ; Sri Chand v. Jagdish Pershad, ; Rani v. Santa Bala, ; Mahabir Prasad v. Jaga Ram, ; Santosh Kumar v. Nanda Lal, .
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Modern Stores (India) Ltd. And Ors. on 13 May, 1987

14. Dr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Chand v. Jagdish Prasad, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1427 ignoring the context in which such decision was rendered. Dr. Banerjee submits that Supreme Court in the said decision has recognised the law that liability of the sureties is under the law joint and several and if a creditor seeks to enforce the surety bond against some only of the joint sureties the other sureties will not on that account be discharged nor will release by the creditor of one of them discharge the other. According to Dr. Banerjee the Supreme Court in this case held that it may be open to the creditor to release one or more of the joint sureties but that will not alter the true character of an adjudication before the court when the proceedings are commenced to enforce the covenants of the bond against all the sureties. The Supreme Court specifically observed that it was concerned in that appeal not with the privilege that the creditor may exercise but with the effect of an adjudication which the court has made in a proceeding to enforce the covenant of the bond. Dr. Banerjee submits that in that case a decree was sought to be executed against the sureties and the sureties objected to the execution of the decree on the ground, inter alia, that the remedies of the sureties against the principal debtor had been impaired, and thereby the sureties stood discharged. That contention was rejected both by the trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court. Three of the sureties appealed from the order of the lower Appellate Court and in that appeal one of the appellants died and the Supreme Court held that the appeal had abated because the representation of the second appellant has not been brought on record. It is the contention of Dr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appeal had abated not because that release of sureties could be taken as discharge of the others but that the appeal would have affected jointly the rights of the appellants who were three of the sureties.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next