Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
United Bank Of India Ltd. vs A.T. Ali Hussain & Co., A Firm And Ors. on 20 December, 1977
18.The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would rely upon a judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1978 CALCUTTA 169, UNITED BANK OF INDIA LTD., V. A.T.ALI HUSSAIN & CO for the following principle:
Saseendrakumari vs State Bank Of Travancore on 13 December, 2010
19.The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would also rely upon a judgment of Kerala High Court reported in AIR 2011 KERALA 58, SASEENDRAKUMARI V. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, for the principle that no person shall be unlawfully enriched due to mistake of the other. The relevant passage at Paragraphs 9 and 10 are as follows:
The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chinthamani Ammal vs Nandagopal Gounder And Anr on 20 February, 2007
He would also submit that the First Appellate Court ought to have been very careful in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which recorded evidence and had the opportunity of noting the demeanour of witnesses. He would also submit that the appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 that the defendant did not know Tamil and he signs in Malayalam and the writing of the amount in the cheque for Rs.25,000/- was written in English would go to show that the entries made in the ledger and the passbook at Rs.2,500/- would be true and the writing of Rs.25,000/- in the cheque signed by the defendant was a manipulated one by the officers of the plaintiff against whom disciplinary actions were rightly taken by the plaintiff. He would also submit that the First Appellate Court should not have interfered in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court when there was no grave error in perceiving the evidence or in applying law. He would also rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 4 SCC 163, CHINTHAMANI AMMAL V. NANDAGOPAL GOUNDER AND ANOTHER in support of his argument. He would therefore submit that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court may be restored.
1