Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Bolisetti Bhavannarayana @ Venkata ... vs Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, ... on 8 February, 1996

M.D. Nyamathulla vs A. Chitharanjan Reddy on 15 February, 2008

Learned single Judge of this Court in Kotla Sudheer Kumar v. Mallavarapu Jojayya @ Jojaiah Chowdary (1 supra), after referring the decision of the Full Bench in Bolisetti Bhavanarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm (2 supra) came to the conclusion that all the ingredients are to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. In a way the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the ingredients are to be satisfied cumulatively. We are more concerned with the words 'to the order of'. The definition of promissory note and illustrations thereto have been referred in the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Kotla Sudheer Kumar vs Mallavarapu Jojayya @ Jojaiah Chowdary on 5 December, 2001

As per the above decision a document in order to consider as a promissory note, it should contain a promise to pay "to, or to the order of a certain person", and "to the bearer of the instrument". As these two terms were not incorporated in the document in question, therefore, the Court below has rightly treated that the document is not a promissory note.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kotla Sudheer Kumar vs Mallavarapu Jojayya Alias Jojaiah ... on 5 December, 2001

11. The Respondent, on the other hand, relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court, which was also relied upon by the lower Court. The issue whether a particular document is to be treated as a promissory note or a bond was considered by a Full Bench of this court in the case of Bolisetti Bhavanarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki cloth Merchant Firm (supra). The full Bench also considered whether it is necessary to treat a particular document as an negotiable instrument under Section 13(1) in order to consider a document as a bond or a promissory note. Though the said issue is not relevant for our purpose, the issue whether the said document is promissory note or not was considered under the second issue. The Full Bench after referring to the definition of the terms contained in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act, held as under :-
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K. Jagan Jagadeeshwara Chary, ... vs K. Renaiah, Mahabubnagar Dist on 9 November, 2018

5. Whereas, during hearing, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a judgments of this Court in Bolisetti Bhavannarayana, Venkata Bhavannarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, Tenali3 and A. Shakunthala v. A. Mangamma4, and State Bank of Hyderabad per V.V. Shastri v. Ranganath Rathi5. On the basis of the principles laid down by the Full Bench, Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court, respectively, the learned counsel contended that unconditional undertaking is sufficient to treat the same as not a promissory note and it is a bond.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.A.Shakunthala W/O Late Ashaiah vs A.Mangamma And Another on 1 March, 2016

6. It is also pertinent to next note that the Court below had referred to the ratio laid down in Bolisetti Bhavannarayana @ Venkata Bhavannarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, Tenali, represented by partner Kommuru Vullakki and others , wherein this Court had held that the definition of term bond is inclusive and not restrictive and that the definition is exhaustive and not restrictive, and that it does not say that any document not attested by witness would not be a bond, though an obligation is incurred by one to pay money to another. It was also held that accordingly, when clause
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - M S Murti - Full Document

Tallatam V. Raghava Rao vs Tallapragada Subrahmanyam on 5 October, 2018

Learned counsel for petitioner relies on the following decisions in BOLISETTI BHAVANNARAYANA @ VENKATA BHAVANNARAYANA Vs. KOMMURU VULLAKKI CLOTH MERCHANT FIRM, TENALI AND OTHERS1, MENDA JOGA RAO Vs. VARANASI HARINADHAM2 and UNDEELA GOWRINADH Vs. MUTYAM ANIL KUMAR3 and contends that the distinction between a bond and a receipt is no more res integra. The case on hand completely covers the definition of a bond and hence, the direction issued by the trial Court to collect stamp duty/penalty as a receipt is untenable.
Telangana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1