Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
Surjeet Kaur vs Smt. Vimla Arora( Now Deceased) on 9 January, 2017 cites

D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr vs K.Sateesh on 1 August, 2008

14.    Judgment  D.Purushotama   Reddy   &  Anr.  Vs.  K.  Sateesh  (Supra) filed by the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case Ld. Trial   Court did not take into account the sum already recovered by the plaintiff as compensation in terms of Section 357   Cr.PC.     In   the   present   case   plaintiff/respondent   no.   1   is   seeking   for recovery of balance amount which remained due after adjusting the amount already   recovered   by   the   respondent   no.  1   in   criminal   proceedings   under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act against respondent no. 2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 41 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Reliance Industries Limited vs Adarsh Packers Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 1 December, 1997

In   view   of   judgment  Reliance   Industries   Limited   Vs.   Adarsh Packers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), the suit under Order 37 CPC on the basis of verbal guarantee is maintainable. As per Section 128 of Indian Contract Act   verbal   guarantee   is   as   good   as   written   guarantee.   It   is   also   settled proposition of law that liability of surety/guarantor is co­extensive that is of the   borrower.   And   appellant   being   guarantor   of   respondent   no.   2   cannot escape from liability.  There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Ld. Trial    Court and the  suit of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has been  rightly decreed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

New Bank Of India vs Master Steel Marketing Co. on 8 August, 1995

17.   Judgment  New Bank of India Vs Master Steel Marketing Co., PLR 1995 111 Del 45 Delhi High Court  filed by Ld. Counsel for appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case   defendants   were   never   supplied   the   copy   of   plaint   and   documents whereas   in   the   present   case   summons   for   appearance   has   been   sent   to appellant several times but could not be served and lastly she was served by way of affixation.   The address mentioned by the appellant in the present appeal is the same that is the mentioned by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in her suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next