Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Union Bank Of India vs Devinder Kumar on 16 January, 2003
14. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that first of all the FDRs were of the other Branch and the dues recovered was from the other branch of the petitioner bank. Moreover, these FDRs were made roughly 18 years after the decree was passed. Obviously they were not pledged with the Bank. The general lien can extend only to the property bailed to the petitioner bank. Hence, in no case the recovery can be made from these FDRs. The learned counsel in this regard referred to the judgment in the case Union Bank of India Vs. Devinder Kumar, IV (2007) CPJ 126 (NC) wherein it is held:
Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Mr. N. Khetty vs Y.G. Sreeram Setty, Mr. U.I.Bhat & Mr. ... on 31 January, 2006
Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment in ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Frazer Town Branch Vs. Y.G. Sreeram Setty S/o Late Shri Y.S. Gopalakrishna Setty (supra), wherein this Commission has raised the issue of procedure to be adopted for exercising the general lien. It is true that no notice was given to the respondent for adjusting these amounts of the FDRs, but in the present case, there was already a decree passed in the civil suit. The loanee as well as guarantor both are simultaneously liable to re-pay the loan amount and in the event of non-payment of the loan, any of them can be proceeded against.
State Bank Of India vs Smt. Goutmi Devi Gupta And Ors. on 15 October, 2001
15. We have carefully examined the record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts are that the son of the complainant/respondent was a partner in the partnership firm, namely, Vatan Cinema and the partnership firm obtained a loan from the State Bank of Saurashtra (now merged in the State Bank of India). The respondent was a guarantor for the said loan and had signed the Deed of Guarantee with the Petitioner Bank. When the loan was not repaid, the Petitioner Bank approached the Civil Court by filing Special C.S. No.63:86. A decree has been passed in favour of the Petitioner-Bank by Civil Judge-S.D. on 18.9.1994. However, the firm or the guarantor did not comply with the decree and the petitioner Bank adjusted the amount of Rs.2,47,044/- from the FDRs of the guarantor/respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the two judgements i.e. State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Goutmi Devi Gupta (Supra) and State Bank of Mysore Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra) wherein it is laid down that the banks have general lien on the amounts deposited with them.
State Bank Of Mysore vs Surjeet Kaur And Anr. on 20 May, 1993
15. We have carefully examined the record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts are that the son of the complainant/respondent was a partner in the partnership firm, namely, Vatan Cinema and the partnership firm obtained a loan from the State Bank of Saurashtra (now merged in the State Bank of India). The respondent was a guarantor for the said loan and had signed the Deed of Guarantee with the Petitioner Bank. When the loan was not repaid, the Petitioner Bank approached the Civil Court by filing Special C.S. No.63:86. A decree has been passed in favour of the Petitioner-Bank by Civil Judge-S.D. on 18.9.1994. However, the firm or the guarantor did not comply with the decree and the petitioner Bank adjusted the amount of Rs.2,47,044/- from the FDRs of the guarantor/respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the two judgements i.e. State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Goutmi Devi Gupta (Supra) and State Bank of Mysore Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra) wherein it is laid down that the banks have general lien on the amounts deposited with them.
Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Om Parkash, S/O Ramji Lal on 3 March, 2010
In this case, we would like to rely on the judgment in Gurgaon Gramin Bank and another Vs. Om Parkash (supra) wherein it is clearly laid down that the liability of guarantor and principal debtor are co-extensive and not in alternative. Thus, in the present case, the bank has decided to adjust the amount of FDRs of the guarantor. As there was a civil decree, we are of the considered opinion that non- issuance of notice was no major lacuna in the whole process of exercising the general lien as banks lend public money and a loanee/guarantor on one side, cannot deny to re-pay the loan and on the other side, keep the money in FDRs with the same Bank.We are of the firm view that public money given as loan for development/running of an enterprise, cannot be allowed to be swindelled away by the loanee or the guarantor. In spite of a decree passed in the civil suit, the principal debtor or the guarantor did not come forward to re-pay the loan.
Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 5 March, 1992
"7. The aforesaid decision of this Court on which reliance was placed by the Executing Court had already been reversed by the Supreme Court in re: Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and others, AIR 1992 SC 1066. The Supreme Courtdecided that case on 5/03/1992 whereas the impugned order is dated 20/04/1992. It has been held by the Supreme Court that having regard to the mercantile custom as judicially recognized the bank has a general lien over all forms of deposits and securities made by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business. The Supreme Court not only relied upon the recital in the letters in the said case creating lien in favour of the bank but also pronounced about the right of the bank of general lien over all forms of deposits or securities made by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business."
Union Bank Of India vs K.V. Venugopalan And Ors. on 11 January, 1990
"This is a case where for the fault of the son the father is sought to be punished which is not allowed under the law. Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned Advocate for the petitioner places reliance in MNU/KE/00498/1990 (Union Bank of India Vs. K.V. Venugopalan and Ors.) where the Kerala High Court in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 pointed out as follows:
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Vachanband Investment Ltd.M Thr. Its ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Vi on 8 August, 2016
Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. Vs. BiswanathJhunjhunwala, VI (2009) SLT 625-IV (2009) BC 574 (SC) decided on 19th August, 2009, the Supreme Court has held that the liability of guarantor and principle debtor are co-extensive and not in alternative. That being the legal position, the petitioner Bank was fully justified in appropriating the said amount from the Saving Bank of the respondent towards the outstanding loan amount. Orders passed by Fora below, thus, being legally erroneous deserve to be set aside."