Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (3.36 seconds)Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 5 March, 1992
In the present case the language of the agreements referred to above under which the four FDRs were deposited with the Bank is much wider and stronger. The authority given to the Bank by these agreements authorised the Bank to adjust and appropriate the FDRs against the dues of the Bank.
Union Bank Of India vs K.V. Venugopalan And Ors. on 11 January, 1990
21. The learned counsel for the respondents has cited the decision of Union Bank of India v. K. V. Venugopalan, AIR 1990 Ker. 223, where it has been held that the transaction evidenced by fixed deposit would not constitute bailment so as to attract Section 171 of the Contract Act and enable the bank to exercise banker's lien. That was a case in which the FDR was not pledged with the bank and it did not come in the hands of the bank in its regular course of business. The FDR was deposited by the holder in the Court in an attachment case and the Court directed the Bank as garnishee to pay the amount of the FDR. On these facts it was held that banker's lien was not available on FOR.
Union Bank Of India vs Manku Narayana on 1 April, 1987
The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayana, AIR 1987 SC 1078, has been overruled.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 128 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Balbir Sound vs Indian Bank And Ors. on 8 January, 1996
20. The decision of this Court in Balbir v. Indian Bank, 1996 MPLJ 853, relied upon by the Executing Court has dealt with the law relating to banker's lien but on the facts of that case it was found that there was variance in the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor without the consent of the surety and therefore the surety was held to have been discharged and the concept of banker's lien could not be invoked by the Bank.
Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. vs Mis Suraj Balram Sawhney & Sons Etc. on 15 December, 1972
In State Bank of India v. Mis. Indexport Registered, AIR 1992 SC 1740, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the decree does not put any fetter on the right of the decree-holder to execute it against any party, whether as a money decree or as a mortgage decree. The execution of the money decree is not made dependent on first applying for execution of the mortgage decree. The choice is left entirely with the decree-holder. The decree does not postpone the execution. The decree is simultaneous and it is jointly and severally against all the defendants including the guarantor. It is the right of the decree-holder to proceed with it in a way he likes. There is nothing in law which provides such a composite decree to be first executed only against the property. The decree for money is a simple decree against the judgment debtor including the guarantor and in no way subject to the execution of the mortgage decree against judgment-debtor 2. If on principle a guarantor could be sued without even suing the principal debtor there is no reason, even if the decretal amount is covered by the mortgage decree, to force the decree-holder to proceed against the mortgaged property first and then to proceed against the guarantor.
1