Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Etc vs Ganesh Wood Products & Ors.Etc on 11 September, 1995
32. The banks and financial institutions promising to lend monies or sanctioning loans and the borrower investing in the project will be clothed by the principles of Promissory Estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an evolving doctrine, contours of which are not yet fully and finally demarcated. Being an equitable doctrine, it should be kept elastic enough in the hands of the court to do complete justice between the parties. If the equity demands that the promissor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands that the promissor should be precluded in the light of things done by the promisee on the faith of representation from resiling and that he should be held fast to his representation, that should be done. It is a matter holding scales even between the parties to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine vide State of H.P. Vs. Ganesh Wood Products reported in 1995 (6) SCC 363.
Nannapaneni Venkata Rao Co-Operative ... vs State Bank Of India, Agricultural ... on 4 April, 2003
34. However, in the present case, the complainant by got issuing the legal notice on 02.12.2014 and filing the present complaint had put an end to the contract as the developer disabled itself from performing its obligations. The bank did not act in good faith nor had it exercised bonafide discretion while releasing the funds. Recourse can be had to a decision in Nannapaneni Venkata Rao Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 2003 AP 515 (DB) it was held :
Section 4 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 24A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs M/S. B.S. Agricultural Industries(I) on 20 March, 2009
In that regard, they relied on the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 121 in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries. We have perused the said Judgment. The facts in the said case and on the facts in the case on hand are different and distinct. In the present case, the Complainant is seeking refund of amount on account of non-compliance of the terms of the agreement. The monies paid by the Complainant are lying with the opposite party no.1, which is nothing but a debt repayable to the Complainant. In this regard, we may state that limitation does not extinguish the debt or preclude its enforcement, unless the debtor chooses to avail himself of the defence and specially pleads it. An indebtedness does not lose its character as such, merely because, it is barred; it still affords sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay, and gives a creditor an insurable interest." The general rule, at least with respect to debts or money demands, is that a statute of limitation bars, or runs "against, the remedy and does not discharge the debt or extinguish or impair the right, obligation, or cause of action." The position then is that under the law a debt subsists notwithstanding that its recovery is barred by limitation. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 36 of 1963, only bars the remedy, but does not destroy the right to which the remedy relates. The right to the debt continues to exist notwithstanding that the remedy is barred by limitation. The only exception in which the remedy also becomes barred by limitation is when the right is destroyed. Except in such cases which are specially provided under the right to which the remedy relates, in other cases the right subsists. Though the right to enforce the debt by judicial process is barred under Section 3 read with the relevant article in the Schedule, the right to the debt remains. The time barred debt does not cease to exist by reason of Section 3. That right can be exercised in any other manner than by any means. The debt is not extinguished, but the remedy to enforce the liability is destroyed. What Section 3 refers to is only the remedy but not the right of the creditors. Such debt continues to subsist so long as it is not paid. Under these circumstances, we do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for OP No.15. Admittedly, it is not denied that the opposite party no.1 had been addressing letters under Ex.B8 to B18 and B20 appraising the progress of construction, by which, they submitted to the cause of action and the present complaint is filed on 17.12.2015. Viewed from any angle, the complaint is not barred by limitation.
The Companies Act, 1956
1