Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Syndicate Bank H O Manipal vs Shri Gajanan S/O Janna Mestha on 28 May, 2024 cites

Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992

24. When the plaintiff had asserted a fact in the plaint that the defendant No.1 was required to intimate the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli, (employer of defendant No.2) to effect recovery from out of the salary of the defendant No.2, and when the plaintiff specifically asserted that the defendant No.1 failed to do so, it was incumbent upon the defendant No.1 to establish before the Court that such an intimation was indeed given to the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli and that the outstanding amount payable by the defendant No.2 was the amount that could not be recovered despite exercising the aforesaid option. It is indisputable that the liability of a surety is coextensive 23 with that of a principal debtor, as provided under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishun and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - AIR 2012 SC 2288 as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha - 1993 SUPP (1) SCC 499 where it was held "it is settled law that the creditor would be entitled to adjust, from the payment of a sum by a debtor towards the time barred debt from the guarantor's account. The appellant did not act in violation of any law when he cut the amount from the fixed deposit of the respondent, that is the surety when the principal debtor failed to pay. It is also well settled that mere forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal debtor or to enforce any other remedy against him does not, in the absence of any provision in the guarantee to the contrary, discharge the surety. However, the surety could be discharged in certain circumstances enumerated under Sections 133, 134, 135, 138 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act. In view of 24 illustration (c) to Section 139 of the Indian Contract Act, the failure on the part of the defendant No.1 to intimate the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli, to effect recovery from out of the salary of the defendant No.2, did discharge the plaintiff from his obligation to pay the loan outstanding payable by the defendant No.2 to defendant No.1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 265 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ram Kishun & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 2 February, 2010

24. When the plaintiff had asserted a fact in the plaint that the defendant No.1 was required to intimate the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli, (employer of defendant No.2) to effect recovery from out of the salary of the defendant No.2, and when the plaintiff specifically asserted that the defendant No.1 failed to do so, it was incumbent upon the defendant No.1 to establish before the Court that such an intimation was indeed given to the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli and that the outstanding amount payable by the defendant No.2 was the amount that could not be recovered despite exercising the aforesaid option. It is indisputable that the liability of a surety is coextensive 23 with that of a principal debtor, as provided under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishun and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - AIR 2012 SC 2288 as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha - 1993 SUPP (1) SCC 499 where it was held "it is settled law that the creditor would be entitled to adjust, from the payment of a sum by a debtor towards the time barred debt from the guarantor's account. The appellant did not act in violation of any law when he cut the amount from the fixed deposit of the respondent, that is the surety when the principal debtor failed to pay. It is also well settled that mere forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal debtor or to enforce any other remedy against him does not, in the absence of any provision in the guarantee to the contrary, discharge the surety. However, the surety could be discharged in certain circumstances enumerated under Sections 133, 134, 135, 138 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act. In view of 24 illustration (c) to Section 139 of the Indian Contract Act, the failure on the part of the defendant No.1 to intimate the Town Municipal Council, Dandeli, to effect recovery from out of the salary of the defendant No.2, did discharge the plaintiff from his obligation to pay the loan outstanding payable by the defendant No.2 to defendant No.1.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - Full Document
1   2 Next