Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India vs Kashmir Art Printing Press, Sirsa And ... on 12 February, 1981

M/S. Northland Traders And Others vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 March, 1994

A similar view has been taken by the Orissa High Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Misra v. State Bank of India reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 67 in the said case the suit was filed by the State Bank of India and the plaint was signed and verified by the Branch Manager, Relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1977 Cal 55 (supra) and the decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. The Kashmir An Printing Press, reported in AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana, 188 and several other decisions it was held that the Branch Manager was competent to sign and verify the plaint and file the same in Court. The Court had relied upon the provisions of Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C. and Order XXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. which lays down that in suit by or against a Corporation any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or other Principal Officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 76 - Full Document

Umesh Chandra Misra vs State Bank Of India And Anr. on 23 June, 1986

In this context reference was made on behalf of the decree-holder to the case of State Bank of India v. Haryana Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., 1986 Bank J 164 where following an- earlier decision in the case of State Bank of India v. Kashmir Art Printing Press, (1981)83 Pun LR 300 : (AIR 1981 Punj & Har 188), it has been held by a learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that where the Branch Manager had the authority to sign the pleadings and verify them and also the authority to sign vakalatnama, he had the further authority to file the same himself as the larger authority granted to a Branch Manager to sign plaints, written statements, petitions etc. connected with the legal proceeding should include the power to file a suit, written statement, petition etc.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S.K. Engineering Works And Ors. vs New Bank Of India, Batala on 5 September, 1986

In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon State Bank of India v. Kashmir Art Printing Press, Sirsa, (1981) 83 Pun LR 300: (AIR I981 Punj & Har 188); Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store v. Punjab National Bank, (1982) 84 Pur LR 472; State Bank of India v. Quality Bread Factory, AIR 1983 Punj and Har 244 and Central Bank of India, Kutch v. P.R.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar, AIR 1986 Guj 113.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Depro Foods Ltd. And Ors. on 1 November, 1985

22. Issue No. 1.--The petitioner is governed by the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Under Section 50(3) of the Act, regulations have been framed by the Reserve Bank of India known as the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. It is provided in regulation 77 that plaints, written statements, etc., may be signed and verified, and generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings whether contentious or non-contentious may be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank by the chairman or by any officer or employee empowered by or under regulation 76 to sign documents for and on behalf of the State Bank. Regulation 76 says that the vice-chairman, the managing directors, the deputy managing directors, the chief general managers and such other officers or employees of the State Bank as the Central Board or the executive committee may authorise in this behalf by notification in the Gazette of India are empowered to sign all documents, instruments, accounts, etc., connected with the current or authorised business of the State Bank. A notification dated August 26, 1972, was issued under regulation 76 authorising the agents of the bank to sign the documents. Subsequently, by notification dated August 26, 1972, the designation of agents has been changed to branch managers. Therefore, the branch managers are entitled to sign the plaints, etc., under regulation 77. It has been held by G. C. Mital J. in Stale Bank oj India v. Kashmir Art Printing Press, Sirsa [1981] PLR 300 ; [1983] 54 Comp Cas 56 that branch managers had the authority not only to sign the pleadings and verify them but also had the authority to sign vakalatnama to authorise an advocate to file the suit or to file the same themselves. It was further held that the larger authority granted to the branch managers to sign plaints, written statements, etc. should include the power to file suit, written statement, etc.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur vs Subhash Chander Jain And Ors. on 1 November, 1994

(13) The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs K.Art Printing Press, , while construing the similar regulations 76 & 77 framed by the State Bank of India, held that the Branch Manager has the authority not only to sign the pleadings and verify them but has the authority to sign the Vakalatnama to authorise an Advocate to file suit or to file the same himself.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Indian Utility Products And Ors. on 8 May, 2000

In the decision in State Bank of India v. Kashmir Article Printing Press, (1983) 54 Com Cas 56 it was held that the use in said Regulation of the words 'generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings whether contentious or non-contentious, may be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank', are quite comprehensive and the authorised officer has been given power to sign all documents connected with legal proceedings and one of such documents would be a Vakalatnama and the presentation of plaints in Court by an advocate in whose favour Vakalatnama has been executed, would be a proper presentation. In the present case, Vakalatnama was executed by said S. K. Batura, P. W. 2 being Branch, Manager of Paharganj branch of the plaintiff-bank in favour of Singh and Company, Advocates who presented the plaint in Court. Thus, the suit was competently filed on behalf of the plaintiff-bank and the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - K S Gupta - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Tushar Groversole Prop. M/S Uttam Purse ... on 31 August, 2024

The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case State Bank of India vs. Kashmir Arts, Printing Press, Sirsa, AIR(1981) Punjab and Haryana 188. While considering the similar problem, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court hold that where a person who was allowed the benefit of cash credit account had been withdrawing and repaying amounts upto the limit of Rs.5,000/- from time to time and on the debit balance, interest was accruing, the limitation would be that provided under Article 1 of Limitation Act, 1963.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next