Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.32 seconds)Section 60 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 5 March, 1992
In Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Kanungo,
the judgment-debtor who owned two Fixed Deposits executed two letters on
17.9.1980 creating a lien in favour of the Bank over the two Fixed Deposit
Receipts and on these facts the Supreme Court held that the two letters
executed by the judgment-debtor on 17.9.1980 created a lien in favour of the
Bank over the two Fixed Deposit Receipts, this is thus a case where the owner
of the Fixed Deposit Receipts had expressly agreed that the Bank would have
lien over the Fixed Deposit Receipts.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
State Bank Of India And Anr Through ... vs Mrs. Jayanthi And Ors on 24 March, 2015
In the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2011
(2) CTC 465, in the case of State of Bank of India vs. Jayanthi and others
this Court has held that the mortgage deed has to be considered as ?a
contract to the contrary?, referred to in Section 171 of Contract Act and
that therefore the bank cannot claim the documents of title deed deposited to
create equitable mortgage, invoking power of general lien under Section 171
of Indian Contract Act.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Punjab National Bank Ltd. vs Arura Mal Durga Das And Anr. on 26 May, 1960
10. The contention of Mr. Kanungo is that the petitioner is a guarantor for
the loan account of M/s. Bimala Bhandar and is therefore liable for the
outstanding balance of M/s. Bimala Bhandar by virtue of the provisions of
Section 128 of the Contract Act which provides that the liability of the
surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is
otherwise provided by the contract. But there is no provision in the Contract
Act to the effect that the properties of the surety can be retained by the
creditor as security for the debts due from the principal debtor to the
creditor. On the other hand, Courts have taken a view that Bank in exercise
of its general lien cannot retain the private property of a partner to
satisfy the outstanding balance in the general account of his firm
notwithstanding the settled position of law that the partners are jointly and
severally liable for the debts of a firm of which they are the partners. The
aforesaid decision in Wolstenholm v. Sheffield Union Banking Co. Ltd. (supra)
has been followed by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Punjab
National Bank Ltd. v. Arura Mal Durga Das and Anr., AIR 1960 Punjab 632, for
coming to the conclusion that :
Gurbax Rai And Ors. vs Punjab National Bank, New Delhi on 20 March, 1984
The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in
Gurbax Rai and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank (supra) is quoted herein below :