Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
State Of Orissa And Ors. And Udyog Silpa ... vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. on 27 April, 1988 cites

Union Of India vs Sita Ram Jaiswal on 28 October, 1976

21. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent pleaded that in any event, defendants Nos. 11 to 16 are liable to pay to the bank the value of the goods supplied by the defendant-company by virtue of the provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. One of the essential requirements of Section 70 is that the plaintiff must lawfully do something for the defendant or deliver something to him. But, in the present case, the plaintiff himself has not delivered the goods in question to defendants Nos. 11 to 16. Hence, we find that, in the facts of the present case, the benefit of the provisions of Section 70 is not available to the plaintiff to enforce his claim against defendants Nos. 11 to 16. That apart, it is only when the necessary ingredients to support the cause of action under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act are pleaded in the plaint, that a cause of action is constituted under Section 70 of the Act as held in Union of India v. Sita Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1977 SC 329. In the present case, as the conditions necessary for applicability of Section 70 are neither pleaded nor proved, such a claim under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be advanced for the first time in the appellate court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - A N Ray - Full Document

Seth Jagjivan Mavji Vithlani vs Messrs Ranchhoddas Meghji on 28 May, 1954

In this context, he relied on the decision in Jagjivan Mavji Vithlani v. Ranchhoddas Meghji, AIR 1954 SC 554, where it was held that the drawee of a negotiable instrument is not liable on it to the payee, unless he has accepted it. Under Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the liability of the drawee arises only when he accepts the bill. As held in the above Supreme Court cases, what is requisite for fixing the drawee with liability under Section 32 is the acceptance by him of the instrument and not an acknowledgment of liability. As the law prescribes no particular form for acceptance, there should be no difficulty in construing an acknowledgment as an acceptance, but then, it must satisfy the requirements of Section 7, and must appear on the bill and be signed by the drawee. In the present case, none of the disputed bills was accepted by any of defendants Nos. 11 to 16, in the manner required by the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants, as there was no acceptance of any of the bills by defendants Nos. 11 to 16, no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff-bank against them on the strength of such bills. So, the plaintiffs suit against defendants Nos. 11 to 16 for the recovery of the amounts under the nine disputed bills is not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Venukuri Krishna Reddi And Anr. vs Kota Ramireddi And Ors. on 23 November, 1953

In Venukuri Krishna Reddi v. Kota Ramireddi, AIR 1954 Mad 848. Rajamannar C. J. and Venkatarama Aiyar J. while holding that though Order 41, Rule 33, confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are, however, certain well-defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised, indicated the cases in which courts could interfere under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, by observing, at page 852, as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1   2 Next