Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)

The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co., ... vs Harnam Singh And Others on 21 April, 1955

The 'debiting of the' amounts covered by the cheques on 3-11-1949 and 17-11-1949 in the current account of the plaintiff at the Barabazar Branch cannot possibly be said to give rise to a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, Kozhikode. Nor can the fact that the cheques were drawn within the jurisdiction of that court suffice. It is equally clear that the existence of a branch of the Central Bank of India Limited at Kozhikode will not also sustain a suit at Kozhikode if no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Kozhikode. It has also to be borne in mind that, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and. General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Harnam Singh, (S) AIR 1955 SC 590, "the obligation of a bank to pay the cheques of a customer rests primarily on the branch at which he keeps his account and the bank can rightly refuse to cash a cheque at any other branch".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 44 - V Bose - Full Document

Jivatlal Purtapshi vs Lalbhai Fulchand Shah on 24 March, 1942

Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmedabad AIR 1959 SC 1160; Horsburgh, W. P. v. Chandroji Sambajirao, AIR 1957 Madk Bha 90 and Jivatlai Purtapshi v. Lalbhai Fulchand, AIR 1942 Bom 251. We are unable to find anything in these decisions which is of assistance for the decision of this case or which militates against the view we have taken. In AIR 1954 SC 429, for example, the question decided in the passages to which our attention was drawn will be clear from the following extract :-
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1