Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.09 seconds)Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 55 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Interest Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Prasad vs Hari Narain And Ors. on 1 August, 1997
Supreme Court approved
the view taken by Rajasthan high Court in Ram Prasad v.
Hari Narain and Ors, AIR 1988, Rajasthan 185, wherein it
was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 or Order 3 of
CPC does not include the act of Power of Attorney holder to
appear as a witness on behalf of a party. It was further held
that the Power of Attorney holder can appear only as a
witness in its personal capacity and whatever knowledge he
has about the case he can state on oath, but, he cannot
appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of
CS(OS)No. 2714.1998 Page 10 of 33
that party.
Syndicate Bank vs Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors on 10 April, 2006
26. Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank Vs.
Channaveerappa Beleri and Ors. 2006 (11) SCC 506, held
that the liability under the guarantee would arise on the
guarantors only when a demand is made. It was noted that
Article 55 of Limitation act provides that the time will begin
to run only a demand is made. It was further noted that
even if Article 113 is to be applied, the time begins to run
only when the right to sue accrues and that such a right
accrues only when a demand for payment is made by the
Bank and is refused by the guarantors. It was further held
that when a demand is made requiring payment within a
stipulated period, say 15 days, the breach occurs or right to
sue accrues, if payment is not made or is refused within 15
days. It was further held that if while making the demand
for payment, no period is stipulated within which the
payment should be made, the breach occurs or right to sue
accrues, when the demand is served on the guarantor. The
CS(OS)No. 2714.1998 Page 27 of 33
Court was also of the view that a condition precedent for the
liability of the guarantor is that the demand should be for
payment of a sum which is legally due and recoverable from
the principal debtor and if the debt had already become
time-barred against the principal debtor, the question of
creditor demanding payment thereafter, for the first time,
against the guarantor would not arise.