Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.53 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 127 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ram Narain vs Lt. Col. Hari Singh And Anr. on 30 April, 1963
Consideration between the creditor and the principal debtor is a valid and good consideration for the guarantee given by the surety. There is considerable conflict of opinion as to whether the past benefit to the principal debtor amounts to a good consideration. In other words whether past consideration can be a good consideration for a contract of guarantee. Nanak Ram v. Mehin Lal, (1875) ILR 1 All 487; Varghese v. I. Abraham, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 202; Ram Narain v. Hari Singh, and Pestonji Meekji Mody v. Meherbai, AIR 1928 Bom 539 take the view that past consideration or past benefit to the principal debtor cannot be a good consideration for a contract of surety.
Pestonji Manekji Mody vs Bai Meherbai on 24 January, 1928
Consideration between the creditor and the principal debtor is a valid and good consideration for the guarantee given by the surety. There is considerable conflict of opinion as to whether the past benefit to the principal debtor amounts to a good consideration. In other words whether past consideration can be a good consideration for a contract of guarantee. Nanak Ram v. Mehin Lal, (1875) ILR 1 All 487; Varghese v. I. Abraham, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 202; Ram Narain v. Hari Singh, and Pestonji Meekji Mody v. Meherbai, AIR 1928 Bom 539 take the view that past consideration or past benefit to the principal debtor cannot be a good consideration for a contract of surety.
Chakhan Lal And Ors. vs Kanhaiya Lal And Ors. on 5 November, 1928
On the other hand, Ghykan Hussain v. Faiyaz Ali, AIR 1940 Oudh 346 and Chakkan Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1929 All 72 take the view that the past consideration or the past benefit to the principal debtor could be a valid consideration for bound of guarantee.
Raja Mohan Manucha vs Manzoor Ahmad Khan on 14 December, 1942
24. We are supported in this view of ours by the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in Raja Mohan Manucha v. Manzoor Ahmed Khan, AIR 1943 PC 29 that the mortgage was void. This plea was given effect to by the two Courts below and was upheld by the Privy Council. But the Privy Council held that it was open in such circumstances, to the plaintiff to repudiate the transaction altogether and claim a relief outside it in the form of restrictions under Section 65 of the Indian Contracts Act. Although no such alternative claim was made in the plaint, the Privy Council allowed the plea ground that the respondent would not be prejudiced by such a claim at all and the matter ought not to be left to a separate suit. It is interesting to note that this relief was allowed to the appellant even though the appeal was heard ex parte in the absence of the respondent.
Section 126 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Srinivasa Raghava Aiyangar vs K.R. Ranganatha Aiyangar And Ors. on 27 November, 1918
30. It would be seen from Exhibit III, a statement of Current Overdraft Account of the 1st defendant and his brother that the account was commenced on 6-2-1945 with a credit balance of Rs. 540. The position on the day when Exhibit P-4, the 1st promissory note was executed on 7/11-4-1945 was that there was credit balance of Rs. 1213-15-4. There was thus no past consideration at all. Although it is not in evidence as to what (was) responsible for getting the first promissory note executed. But in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would not be unreasonable to presume that the Bank was not willing to allow the 1st defendant and his brother overdraw the amount unless they executed a promissory note. That such a presumption can be drawn is clear from the decision in Srinivasa Raghava Ayyangar v. Ranganatha Ayyangar, 36 Mad LJ 618 = (AIR 1919 Mad 528) at page 621 (of Mad LJ); (at p. 529 of AIR).