Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Sh. Vijay Singh & Ors vs Smt. Manali Malik & Ors on 5 May, 2009

A. Saraswathamm vs Y. Venkata Narayana Reddy on 24 January, 2020

The plaint can be rejected on the ground that the plaint is barred by any law, which includes the law declared by the Courts. But the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant is pertaining to contractual obligation between the banker and drawer of the cheque, but not relating to contractual obligation between the drawer and drawee or their legal heirs consequent upon the death of drawer or drawee. Hence, based on the principle laid down in the judgment of Delhi High Court in "Sh.Vijay Singh vs. Smt Manali Malik (I.A.No.6459 of 2008 in CS (OS) No.930 of 2007 dated 05.05.2009), the same is though not binding precedent, it is difficult to reject the plaint at the threshold. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by law applying the principle laid down by the Delhi High Court. Hence, the contention of MSM,J crp_2411_2019 7 the petitioner - defendant is rejected, leaving it open to raise such contention during argument.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Ms. Poonam Krishna Manuja vs Mrs. Anupama Juneja on 10 June, 2022

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Singh & Ors vs Smt. Manali Malik & Ors, 2009 (160) DLT 259, has held that "13. It is to be noted that the drawing of a cheque does not by itself operate as an assignment of the monies in the hands of the banker in favour of the payee. The holder of a cheque has no right to enforce payment from the bank unless the banker has contracted with the holder to honour. The banker is only liable to the order of the drawer and thus if there is no order of the drawer on the banker, on the date of the presentment owing to the death of the drawer, the bank is not liable to pay. Section 57 provides that the legal representatives of a deceased person cannot negotiate by delivery only a cheque payable to order and endorsed by the deceased but not delivered. This is on the ground that the legal representative is not the agent of deceased. Upon demise, the estate including the amounts with the bank vest in the legal representatives or nominee and it requires a fresh act on the part of the legal representative or nominee to transfer the money, if any. Only if the cheque had been signed by the legal representative, at the instance of holder thereof does the legal representative becomes personally liable thereunder, under Section 29 of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Meenakshi Gupta vs Smt. Komal on 4 June, 2012

OPD ISSUE No.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the principal amount of Rs.40,000/­ ? OPP I shall be dealing with these issues under a common discussion in as much as issues are inter­connected because decision of Court on one issue will have direct bearing on the decision of Court on another issue. Undisputedly defendants received Rs.40,000/­ from plaintiff and cheque Ex. PW1/2 has been issued by defendant no.1 as Anand Swaroop Aggarwal Date:­ 04/06/2012 SCJ­Cum­RC:East, Delhi Suit No.355/08 Page 9/20 proprietor of M/s. J. N. Traders. The case law Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. Manali Malik & Ors. (supra) has no application in this in as much as in said case law it has been held as under :
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Dharmesh Mohan vs Mrs. Anupama Juneja on 10 June, 2022

25. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Singh & Ors vs Smt. Manali Malik & Ors, 2009 (160) DLT 259, has held that CS SCj No. 610953/16 Dharmesh Mohan Vs. Anupama Juneja & Ors 9/13 "13. It is to be noted that the drawing of a cheque does not by itself operate as an assignment of the monies in the hands of the banker in favour of the payee. The holder of a cheque has no right to enforce payment from the bank unless the banker has contracted with the holder to honour. The banker is only liable to the order of the drawer and thus if there is no order of the drawer on the banker, on the date of the presentment owing to the death of the drawer, the bank is not liable to pay. Section 57 provides that the legal representatives of a deceased person cannot negotiate by delivery only a cheque payable to order and endorsed by the deceased but not delivered. This is on the ground that the legal representative is not the agent of deceased. Upon demise, the estate including the amounts with the bank vest in the legal representatives or nominee and it requires a fresh act on the part of the legal representative or nominee to transfer the money, if any. Only if the cheque had been signed by the legal representative, at the instance of holder thereof does the legal representative becomes personally liable thereunder, under Section 29 of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Divya Mohan vs Mrs. Anupama Juneja on 10 June, 2022

28. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Singh & Ors vs Smt. Manali Malik & Ors, 2009 (160) DLT 259, has held that "13. It is to be noted that the drawing of a cheque does not by itself operate as an assignment of the monies in the hands of the banker in favour of the payee. The holder of a cheque has no right to enforce payment from the bank unless the banker has contracted with the holder to honour. The banker is only liable to the order of the drawer and thus if there is no order of the drawer on the banker, on the date of the presentment owing to the death of the drawer, the bank is not liable to pay. Section 57 provides that the legal representatives of a deceased person cannot negotiate by delivery only a cheque payable to order and endorsed by the deceased but not delivered. This is on the ground that the legal representative is not the agent of deceased. Upon demise, the estate including the amounts with the bank vest in the legal representatives or nominee and it requires a fresh act on the part of the legal representative or nominee to transfer the money, if any. Only if the cheque had been signed by the legal representative, at the instance of holder thereof does the legal representative becomes personally liable thereunder, under Section 29 of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Medha Mohan vs Mrs. Anupama Juneja on 10 June, 2022

28. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Singh & Ors vs Smt. Manali Malik & Ors, 2009 (160) DLT 259, has held that "13. It is to be noted that the drawing of a cheque does not by itself operate as an assignment of the monies in the hands of the banker in favour of the payee. The holder of a cheque has no right to enforce payment from the bank unless the banker has contracted with the holder to honour. The banker is only liable to the order of the drawer and thus if there is no order of the drawer on the banker, on the date of the presentment owing to the death of the drawer, the bank is not liable to pay. Section 57 provides that the legal representatives of a deceased person cannot negotiate by delivery only a cheque payable to order and endorsed by the deceased but not delivered. This is on the ground that the legal representative is not the agent of deceased. Upon demise, the estate including the amounts with the bank vest in the legal representatives or nominee and it requires a fresh act on the part of the legal representative or nominee to transfer the money, if any. Only if the cheque had been signed by the legal representative, at the instance of holder thereof does the legal representative becomes personally liable thereunder, under Section 29 of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. R. K. Sharma vs Citi Bank N. A on 7 September, 2013

35.PW2 is Sh. V. P. Malik, an ex­colleague of the plaintiff and ex­employee of the defendant bank, who had also similarly opted for VERP and he has also been extensively cross examined by the counsel for the defendant. He has also stated in his cross examination that the plaintiff was given all the benefits, which he was entitled to as per the voluntary early retirement plan announced by the defendant bank. It was correct that all employees were given their fact­sheet which stated the benefit­money which an employee would get in case he opted for voluntary retirement. The plaintiff was also given the fact­sheet and he was paid as per the fact­sheet given to him. He has also stated that the basis salary of Mr. Malhotra, Mr. Maini and Mr. Tiwari was increased in the month of September, 1993.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ganesh on 20 November, 2018

In his cross examination by Sh. V. P. Malik, learned counsel for the accused PW- 6 deposed that at points A1 to A2 on MLC ExPW6/A, he had mentioned that the police officials who had brought the victim Jamila Peter to the hospital had informed him that the victim lady was lying on the road side, near Singh Petrol Pump at SBI Colony, Pratap Bagh.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next