Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)Section 131 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 230 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Canara Bank vs Canara Sales Corporation & Ors on 22 April, 1987
In these circumstances no negligence can be
attributed to the plaintiff, and since there is no evidence on record to
suggest that the plaintiff ratified the acts of the wrongdoer, therefore,
in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Canara Bank's case (supra), notwithstanding the fact that the
defendants may not have been negligent in dealing with the cheque,
Suit No. 378/2016 Page no. 12 of 14
the defendants no. 1 and 2 are liable to pay to the plaintiff the cheque
amount debited from its account.
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Tristar Consultants vs Vcustomer Services India Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 5 March, 2007
In so far as the liability of the
defendant no. 3 is concerned, he is only an employee of the defendants
no. 1 and 2 and therefore, in the light of the provisions of section 230
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in Tristar Consultants v. V Customer Services India
Pvt. Ltd. and another, AIR 2007 Delhi 157 he is not personally liable
for the acts of his employer.
Section 6 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1