Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Overseas Bank vs Industrial Chain Concern on 7 November, 1989

State Bank Of India vs Union Bank Of India And Others on 4 February, 2025

32. At the first blush, it would appear that it was for the plaintiff- Bank to have scrutinized the draft before clearing it. However, if one goes through Section 131 of the N.I.Act and the judgments of the Supreme Court 13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 05:05:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016630 RSA-1384-1993 14 in the cases of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation versus State Bank of India and Ors. and Indian Overseas Bank versus Industrial Chain Concern (supra), it would emerge that the defendant-Bank had been negligent in handling the issue. The account in the name of Gurmeet Kaur was opened on 30.01.1980. The demand draft was of 07.02.1980. It was presented to the defendant-Bank on 09.02.1980 and was then sent to the plaintiff-Bank for clearance and was cleared by the plaintiff bank on 09.02.1980 itself. Thereafter, by 12.02.1980, a sum of `69,000/- was withdrawn by Gurmeet Kaur. When the draft was found to be forged, it did not initiate any action either against Gurmeet Kaur or the introducer Surjit Singh Manku. The introducer was not produced in evidence also. No criminal action was initiated. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that due care was not taken by the Bank in opening the account.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab National Bank vs Uco Bank And Ors on 10 September, 2025

8. While referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. Industrial Chain Concern, (1990) 1 SCC 484 : 1989 (SLT Soft) 430, as per para 10 of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation's case (supra) Supreme Court has approved the ratio that a banker before opening of an account must make proper preliminary inquiries by taking appropriate references of responsible persons so as to confirm the identity, integrity and reliability of the proposed customers."
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varinder Talwar vs Kotak Securities Limited on 28 February, 2023

In Indian Overseas Bank (supra), the plaintiff had suffered the loss as a fictitious account had been created in its name and the cheques were in the plaintiff's name and hence, the plaintiff therein had sued the bank for negligence and conversion. In the present case, the concerned cheque had been manipulated in such a manner that ultimately the cheque was not in the name of the plaintiff. No money had been transferred into the account of the plaintiff and no money was transferred out of the account of the plaintiff. The loss was, in the real sense, actually suffered by the defendant no.1 from whose account the money was transferred into the account of the so-called Sunil Narang. It was for the defendant no.1 to seek its remedies to recover the amounts which were fraudulently transferred. However, the defendant no.1 cannot claim that its liability qua the plaintiff stood extinguished.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Canara Bank vs Vijaya Bank on 1 October, 1991

15. Thus Indian Overseas Bank v. Industrial Chain Concern and Indian Bank (Ltd.) v. Catholic Syrian Bank , are distinguishable and in the present case, since there is no requisite plea by the appellant-plaintiff as stated above or at any rate no evidence was brought to our notice to establish the said requisite plea, we hold that the defendant-respondent is protected under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Canara Bank vs Vijaya Bank on 1 October, 1991

Thus, Indian Overseas Bank v. Industrial Chain Concern , and Indian Bank v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., , are distinguishable and in the present case, since there is no requisite plea by the appellant-plaintiff as stated above or at any rate no evidence was brought to our notice to establish the said requisite plea, we hold that the defendant-respondent is protected under section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Overseas Bank vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr on 26 February, 2018

While referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Industrial Chain Concern (1990) 1 SCC 484 as per para 10 of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation's case (supra) Supreme Court has approved the ratio that a CS (OS) No. 354/2001 Page 12 of 21 banker before opening of an account must make proper preliminary inquiries by taking appropriate references of responsible persons so as to confirm the identity, integrity and reliability of the proposed customers.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next