Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.23 seconds)
Mohammad Khan vs State Bank Of Travancore on 1 January, 1978 cites

Ouseph Poulo And Three Others vs Catholic Union Bank Ltd. And Ors on 16 April, 1964

14. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the respondent to a decision of a Division Bench in Ouseph v. Orient Union Bank Ltd., (1968 Ker LT 973) where the Division Bench considered more or less a similar question. We notice from the decision of the Division Bench that the attention of the court was not drawn either to the decision of Vaidyalingam J., or to the decision of the Division Bench which had been reported. There again the question concerned the scope of Section 2 (c) (11) of Act 31 of 1958. In that case a mortgage debt had ripened into a decree and the mortgagee-decree-holder assigned his decree to a Banking company. When the Bank sought to execute the decree the judgment-debtors raised the plea that they were entitled to relief under Act 31 of 1958 and the decree was liable to be scaled down under the provision of the Act. It is evident that that was a case where at its inception the debt was not due to a Banking company but on the date of commencement of the Act, the debt had become due to a Banking company. The court found that notwithstanding the fact that the debt was one due to a Banking company at the commencement of the Act it would not be excluded from the definition of debt in Section 2 (c) (11) because the debt was not one originally borrowed from a Banking company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 20 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next