Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)
Kailash Chandra Gaur vs Central Bank Of India And Ors. on 21 July, 2005 cites

Margaret Lalita Samuel vs Indo Commercial Bank Ltd on 25 September, 1978

In support of this submission, the appellant relied upon the case of Mrs. Margaret Lalita Samuel v. The Indo Commercial Bank Ltd. , wherein it was held, "We are concerned with the period of Limitation for enforcing the liability of the defendant under the surety bond.... We hold that the suit to enforce the liability is governed by Article 115 of the limitation Act and the cause of action arises when the contract of continuing guarantee is broken," The very same view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Indian Bank v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. III (2002) BC 261 (DB) : 2002(2) Bankmann 612 (DB). I am in complete agreement with the above said propositions and hold that the claim against the appellant is barred by time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 66 - O C Reddy - Full Document

T. Raju Setty vs Bank Of Baroda on 20 December, 1990

17. The learned Advocate for the appellant has further urged that the respondent Bank obtained the signature of the guarantors in prescribed forms and the conditions and covenants of the said agreement are all unilateral and favouring the Bank and the borrowers have no option but to simply sign in the agreement as they were forced to take loan for the survival of their business. It is further submitted that Clause 2 of the agreement would support this contention of the appellant that the terms of the guarantee are opposed to public policy and they attract the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The appellant also relied upon Clause 7 of the agreement, which states that the guarantee shall not be revoked and shall remain in force till the amounts due and payable by the principal(s) are paid up in full inclusive of interest, charges, etc. Appellant contended that these clauses are ex facie against the public policy and, therefore, they are unlawful and void. This contention was repudiated by the learned Advocate for the respondent Bank placing reliance upon the case of T. Raju Setty v. Bank of Baroda , wherein it was held, "A recital in the surety bond that surety will not be entitled to any of the rights conferred by Sections 133, 134, 135, 139 and 141 cannot be considered to defeat the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act and as in the case of a contract of guarantee neither the consideration nor the object is unlawful and the recital in question is not opposed to public policy, the agreement with such recital cannot be said to be hit by Section 23." In view of the same, the submissions made by the appellant is unacceptable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1   2 Next