Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Union Bank Of India, Bombay vs Suresh Bhailal Mehta And Anr. on 23 April, 1996

Mahendrabhai Kantilal Dave vs Manekchowk Co-Op Bank Ltd. And 2 Ors. on 12 July, 2007

13. Thus, it is apparent that in both the cited cases, though the goods were hypothecated goods, the sureties were discharged as there were categorical findings of facts recorded by the Subordinate Court that : [i] there was loss of goods, and [ii] such loss had been occasioned due to negligence of the bank. Applying the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, not only is there no finding as to the loss having been occasioned by the negligence of the bank, but the deposition of the bank official states otherwise. As recorded by this Court in the case of Union Bank of India, Bombay v. Suresh Bhailal Mehta (supra) this is not a case where the defendant has led any evidence. To the contrary, as recorded hereinbefore, the defendant had not taken any steps in furtherance of the pleadings and their right to lead evidence had been closed by the Board of Nominees after having granted reasonable opportunities.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.R. Arya (Through Lrs) vs Veena Banga & Ors. on 20 November, 2013

Though some of the High Courts in Binodilal Vs. Satyendra Singh AIR 1956 MP 57, Patel Babu Lal Pranlal Brothers Vs. Pameric Export International, Cochin AIR 1999 Kerala 355 and Union Bank of India Vs. Suresh Bhailal Mehta AIR 1997 Gujarat 48 appear to have taken a different view but in the light of the judgments aforesaid of this Court, I am bound thereby though may observe that if the essential ingredients of Section 14 are found to be pleaded whether in the plaint or by way of a separate application, mere non reference thereto would not come in the way of the Court giving the relief thereunder.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

State Farms Corporation Of India Ltd. & ... vs Dr. Mahendra Singh on 3 December, 2013

Though some of the High Courts in Binodilal Vs. Satyendra Singh AIR 1956 MP 57, Patel Babu Lal Pranlal Brothers Vs. Pameric Export International, Cochin AIR 1999 Kerala 355 and Union Bank of India Vs. Suresh Bhailal Mehta AIR 1997 Gujarat 48 appear to have taken RFAs No.269/2011 & 371/2011 Page 31 of 40 a different view but in the light of the judgments aforesaid of this Court, I am bound thereby though may observe that if the essential ingredients of Section 14 are found to be pleaded whether in the plaint or by way of a separate application, mere non reference thereto would not come in the way of the Court giving the relief thereunder.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Dr. Mahendra Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 3 December, 2013

Though some of the High Courts in Binodilal Vs. Satyendra Singh AIR 1956 MP 57, Patel Babu Lal Pranlal Brothers Vs. Pameric Export International, Cochin AIR 1999 Kerala 355 and Union Bank of India Vs. Suresh Bhailal Mehta AIR 1997 Gujarat 48 appear to have taken RFAs No.269/2011 & 371/2011 Page 31 of 40 a different view but in the light of the judgments aforesaid of this Court, I am bound thereby though may observe that if the essential ingredients of Section 14 are found to be pleaded whether in the plaint or by way of a separate application, mere non reference thereto would not come in the way of the Court giving the relief thereunder.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Abdul Qayoom Khan vs Naveen Jindal (2004 (2) on 18 December, 2015

234); State of Kerala vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 68); High Court of Judicature at Bombay versus Suresh Kumar RangraoPatil (AIR 1997 SC 2631); and recently in Supreme Court Advocates on Record versus Union of India (2015) AIR SCW 5457. It is neither possible nor proper to make an exhaustive list of features that constitute Basic Structure of a Constitution. It has been held that for determining what part or feature of Constitution is its Basic Structure, one has perforce to examine in each case, place of particular feature in the Constitutional scheme, its object and purpose and consequence of its amendment on the integrity of the Constitution. Supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, independence of judiciary, rule of law, socialist, secular foundation of polity are amongst the Constitutional features that have been held to constitute basic Structure of the Constitution and therefore not amendable in exercise of amending power provided under the Constitution.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1