Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.01 seconds)Section 144 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
State Bank Of India vs Premco Saw Mill, Ahmedabad And Ors. on 22 July, 1983
27.8. The Decision in State Bank Of India v. Premco Saw Mill, Ahmedabad and Ors. has not considered the point in question. That was a case in which there was an agreement to forbear from taking action against the principal debtor. Therefore, it was held that the surety bond was supported by consideration. Such is not the situation obtaining in the instant case. Therefore, we cannot consider that this Decision is of any assistance to the plaintiff. In addition to the fact that the surety bonds in question were executed for the various loans advanced to the first-defendant, they were also executed in compliance with the terms of the order under which the various loans were sanctioned to the first defendant. The loans were sanctioned by the plaintiff Bank on condition that the Directors of the first defendant should also stand as sureties. This is clear from the letter of sanction dated 11-11-1982 produced as Ext. D-6, in which it has been stated that all the Directors should give their personal guarantee for the facility; same is the condition prescribed in Ext: D-7. The Directors of the first-defendant accepted this condition and passed a resolution, as per Ext. P-36 in the Meeting of the Board of Directors. Pursuant thereto, executed the surety bonds, as per Ext.P-7 and P-8. Thus, it is clear that the surety bonds were executed though on a date subsequent to the principal agreement was executed, but the surety bonds were executed in pursuance of one of the terms of the agreement. This itself was a sufficient consideration.
D.S. Gowda vs Corporation Bank on 22 October, 1982
53. The contention of the defendants is that the meaning of the aforesaid words is to agree for payment of interest at the end of each quarter and does not amount to compounding of interest if it is not paid quarterly. They also take aid of contents of Clause (4) which provides that if the arrears of instalment and the interest are not paid, the bank will be entitled to recover overdue interest at the rate fixed by the bank for such loans from time to time. However Sri Aswatharam, learned Counsel for the Bank has placed reliance on the Reserve Bank of India Circular bearing DBCD No. Dir. BC.30/C/96-76 dated 13th March 1976. It is also referred to in GOWDA D.S. v. CORPORATION BANK, 1982(2) KLJ 490: ILR (Kar) 1982(2) 1353. The said Circular merely uses the expression "rest". The relevant portion of the Circular reads thus:
State Bank Of Mysore vs Official Liquidator And Ors. on 9 December, 1982
This Court in STATE BANK OF MYSORE v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, 1967 Mysore Law Reports 767: Vol.10 held thus:
Bank Of India vs Karnam Ranga Rao And Ors. on 27 November, 1985
This has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in BANK OF INDIA v. KARNAM RANGARAO, .
Shambu Nath Mehra vs The State Of Ajmer on 12 March, 1956
No doubt, it cannot be readily assumed that an illustration to a Section is repugnant to it. But, at the same time, as held by the Supreme Court in SHAMBHU NATH MEHRA v. THE STATE OF AJMER, an illustration does not exhaust the full content of the Section, which it illustrates, but equally it can neither curtail nor expand its ambit.
Chandradhar Goswami & Ors vs The Gauhati Bank Ltd on 14 October, 1966
In the case decided by the Supreme Court, referred to above, the defendant challenged the particular entry pertaining to Rs. 10,000/-but the plaintiff therein did not produce any evidence to prove that entry. Hence, the Supreme Court specifically held that the said entry was not proved. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge to any of the specific entries in the accounts extract, produced by the plaintiff and in the light of provisions contained in Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, it is not possible to accept this contention. Hence, it is rejected.