Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 330 (2.53 seconds)
Documents citing Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply vs M/S. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd

12. Adverting to the second limb of the argument of the learned Advocate General that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed return of the Bank Guarantee, since it is open to the appellant to set off the amount secured by the Bank Guarantee towards liquidated damages, on the premise that a right to set off cannot be barred by limitation. No doubt in Punjab National Bank and others vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that a creditor can adjust any amount that is lying 13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Original Side Appeal (CAD) No.169 of 2022 to the credit of the debtor, which is due to it and there cannot be any limitation for such set off, but as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, a claim for damages stands on a slightly different footing.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Syndicate Bank H O Manipal vs Shri Gajanan S/O Janna Mestha on 28 May, 2024

24. When the plaintiff had asserted a fact in the plaint that the defendant No.1 was required to intimate the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli, (employer of defendant No.2) to effect recovery from out of the salary of the defendant No.2, and when the plaintiff specifically asserted that the defendant No.1 failed to do so, it was incumbent upon the defendant No.1 to establish before the Court that such an intimation was indeed given to the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli and that the outstanding amount payable by the defendant No.2 was the amount that could not be recovered despite exercising the aforesaid option. It is indisputable that the liability of a surety is coextensive 23 with that of a principal debtor, as provided under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishun and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - AIR 2012 SC 2288 as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha - 1993 SUPP (1) SCC 499 where it was held "it is settled law that the creditor would be entitled to adjust, from the payment of a sum by a debtor towards the time barred debt from the guarantor's account. The appellant did not act in violation of any law when he cut the amount from the fixed deposit of the respondent, that is the surety when the principal debtor failed to pay. It is also well settled that mere forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal debtor or to enforce any other remedy against him does not, in the absence of any provision in the guarantee to the contrary, discharge the surety. However, the surety could be discharged in certain circumstances enumerated under Sections 133, 134, 135, 138 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act. In view of 24 illustration (c) to Section 139 of the Indian Contract Act, the failure on the part of the defendant No.1 to intimate the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli, to effect recovery from out of the salary of the defendant No.2, did discharge the plaintiff from his obligation to pay the loan outstanding payable by the defendant No.2 to defendant No.1.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahadeo Nathuji Patil vs Surjabai Khushalchand Lakkad And Ors. on 2 November, 1993

It is material to see that the above reasoning in Punjab case is pragmatic and sound and is equally applicable in cases where the defence is raised under Section 53A of the Act because when in possession, the defendant/ transferee may not think it necessary to bring the suit for specific performance of contract to acquire title and may remain content in maintaining his possession of the suit property in accordance with the provisions of Section53A of the Act which would protect his possession, if he would comply with its requirements.
Bombay High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Prof Niranjana vs State By on 23 January, 2026

In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha [MANU/SC/0345/1992: (1993) SCC (Cri) 149] it has been held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppre3ssion or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistrate to find whether the accused concerned should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded, then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindi- cation of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means of wreak personal vengeance.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sanjay Pinto vs A.Kamaraj on 18 October, 2011

27. Admittedly, the websites of other news paper within and outside India carried the same news item on the same day and on the next day and the failure of complainant to initiate criminal action against other print media remains unexplained. The same would only go to show the biased and malafide intention of the complainant in filing this complaint for wrecking vengeance due to his personnel vendetta against A3 and the process of implicating A1 and A2 in the complaint would only amount to act of unnecessary harassment of A1 and A2. Such conduct of the complainant as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, amounts to clear abuse of process of law, in so for as the petitioners are concerned and the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in 1998 (5) SCC 749-Pepsi foods Ltd., V. Special Judicial Magistrate and 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499-Punjab nation bank and others V. Surendra Prasad Sinha referred to in paras 15 and 16 herein is squarely applicable to the present case. Viewing from any angle, the criminal prosecution against the accused 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to continue and is hence liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

B.K Educational Services Pvt Ltd vs Parag Gupta And Associates on 11 October, 2018

“§ 572. An existing legal or moral obligation resting upon the promiser, is also a good consideration for a promise, to an extent corresponding with the extent of the obligation, but no further or otherwise.” 8 6 Similarly, in Punjab National Bank v. S. Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, this Court reiterated the well- known difference between the right to recover a debt remaining even though the remedy to do so may be barred by the law of limitation (see paragraph 5).
Supreme Court of India Cites 84 - Cited by 182 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next