Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy vs Mulji Haridas on 25 February, 1915
In Matabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Mulji Haridas (1915) I.L.R. 39 Bom. 399 the separate oral agreement that the money paid on December 23rd 1907 should be treated as a prepayment in lieu of the advance due on January 30th 1908, and that in satisfaction of the promissory note of December 23rd the payee should give the holder an acknowledgment of the receipt of the instalment due on the later date was held to be an agreement which could be proved under proviso (2) to Section 92.
Ramjibun Serowgy vs Oghore Nath Chatterjee on 19 March, 1897
In Ramjibun Serowgy v. Oghore Nath Chutterjee (1897) I.L.R. 25 Cal. 401 there was an attempt to set up an oral agreement restricting the absolute engagement in a promissory 'note to pay on demand and to bring it under proviso (3) which relates to agreements constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of an obligation under the contract, and it was ruled out as being an agreement to postpone the legal obligation to perform a promise which was absolute in its terms.
Kamla Sahai vs Babu Nandan Mian And Anr. on 5 April, 1909
W.N. 923 is an authority on Section 91 Kamala Sahai v. Babu Nundan Mian (1909) 11 Cal. L.J. 39 deals with an agreement dehors Section 92 altogether, as it provided for the discharge ,of a debt secured by a mortgage deed by means of putting the mortgagee in possession and letting him enjoy the profits of the mortgaged property.
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Jnaendra Mohan Chowdhry vs Gopal Das Chowdhry on 16 August, 1904
Jnanendra Mohan Chaudhury v. Gopal Das Chowdhury (1901) 8 Cal.
1