Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)State Bank Of India vs Quality Bread Factory And Ors. on 8 December, 1982
14. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the citation which has been relied upon the counsel for the appellants, i.e., State bank of India's case (supra) was considered by a Division Bench and was overruled. I have gone through the D.B. Authority also. There is no denying the fact that it was observed by the Hon'ble D.B. that the judgment of the Single Judge stands over-ruled but in this case the Hon'ble D.B. was dealing with a case of surety and it was held that a surety in the case of hypothecation is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 141 of the Contract Act for his benefit, meaning thereby that the benefit of Section 141 of course can be availed by the original mortgagor. I am dealing with a case of a mortgagor and the point for determination would be whether at any material point, the possession of the hypothecated goods was ever delivered to the Bank and the answer of this Court is in the negative.
State Bank Of Saurashtra vs Chitranjan Rangnath Raja And Anr on 30 April, 1980
15. Counsel for the appellants, then relied upon a judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State Bank of Saurashtra v. Chitranjan Rangnath and another (AIR 1980 SC 1528), and submitted that when a cash credit facility has been advanced by the Bank on pledged goods, and those goods had been lost due to the banker's negligence, in such a situation, the surety stands discharged to the extent of the security lost.
Shiv Machine Tools vs Canara Bank on 28 September, 1995
18. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon Ganga Prasad Misra v. Central Bank of India and Brothers (1990 ISJ (Banking) 653), Central Bank of India v. Madan Lal and Brothers (1996 ISJ (Banking) 163), Shiv Machine v. Canara Bank (1996 ISJ (Banking 409), Central Bank of India v. Abdul Mazid (1996 ISJ (Banking 661), and M. R. Chakrapani Iyengar v. Canara Bank (1999 ISJ (Banking) 520), and his blanket contention was that when the Bank had not taken any steps to seize the hypothecated goods or when the Bank is not taking any steps to reduce the loss of the debtor, the debtor stands exonerated to the extent of that loss.
M.R. Chakrapani Iyengar vs Canara Bank on 18 September, 1996
18. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon Ganga Prasad Misra v. Central Bank of India and Brothers (1990 ISJ (Banking) 653), Central Bank of India v. Madan Lal and Brothers (1996 ISJ (Banking) 163), Shiv Machine v. Canara Bank (1996 ISJ (Banking 409), Central Bank of India v. Abdul Mazid (1996 ISJ (Banking 661), and M. R. Chakrapani Iyengar v. Canara Bank (1999 ISJ (Banking) 520), and his blanket contention was that when the Bank had not taken any steps to seize the hypothecated goods or when the Bank is not taking any steps to reduce the loss of the debtor, the debtor stands exonerated to the extent of that loss.
Vineet Misra vs Reviewing Authority, Industrial ... on 3 August, 1998
18. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon Ganga Prasad Misra v. Central Bank of India and Brothers (1990 ISJ (Banking) 653), Central Bank of India v. Madan Lal and Brothers (1996 ISJ (Banking) 163), Shiv Machine v. Canara Bank (1996 ISJ (Banking 409), Central Bank of India v. Abdul Mazid (1996 ISJ (Banking 661), and M. R. Chakrapani Iyengar v. Canara Bank (1999 ISJ (Banking) 520), and his blanket contention was that when the Bank had not taken any steps to seize the hypothecated goods or when the Bank is not taking any steps to reduce the loss of the debtor, the debtor stands exonerated to the extent of that loss.
Central Bank Of India vs M/S. Madan Lal & Brothers & Ors on 1 November, 1995
18. Counsel for the appellants also relied upon Ganga Prasad Misra v. Central Bank of India and Brothers (1990 ISJ (Banking) 653), Central Bank of India v. Madan Lal and Brothers (1996 ISJ (Banking) 163), Shiv Machine v. Canara Bank (1996 ISJ (Banking 409), Central Bank of India v. Abdul Mazid (1996 ISJ (Banking 661), and M. R. Chakrapani Iyengar v. Canara Bank (1999 ISJ (Banking) 520), and his blanket contention was that when the Bank had not taken any steps to seize the hypothecated goods or when the Bank is not taking any steps to reduce the loss of the debtor, the debtor stands exonerated to the extent of that loss.
1