State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. M.N. Kaul (Deceased By His Legal ... on 28 March, 1967
In State of Maharashtra Vs. M. N. Kaul AIR 1967 SC 1634, it has been held that a guarantor can not be made liable beyond the terms of agreement.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)The Hukumchand Insurance Co. Ltd. vs The Bank Of Baroda And Ors. on 5 April, 1977
In Hukumchand Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The Bank of Baroda and others AIR 1977 Kant. 204, it was held that liability of principal debtor and surety being co-extensive are really separate though arising out of the same transaction. The guarantor alone can be proceeded against or be sued, as the case may be, without so proceeding against the principal debtor. The condition precedent is that the default on the part of principal debtor must exist.
Union Bank Of India vs K.V. Venugopalan And Ors. on 11 January, 1990
To the same effect is the view taken by Kerala High Court in Union Bank of India Vs. K.V. Venugopalan and others AIR 1990 Ker.
Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 5 March, 1992
In Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar AIR 1992 SC 1066, it has been held that with respect to negotiable instruments including FDRs which are remitted to the Bank by the customer, the Bank can exercise banker's lien.
State Bank Of India vs Smt. Neela Ashok Naik And Another on 10 September, 1999
The FDRs have been held "goods" within the meaning of Section 176 of IC Act, 1872 and Section 2 (7) of Sale of Goods Act, 1952 in State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Neela Ashok Naik and another AIR 2000 Bom. 151. The bank, in case, the contingency to realize the amount from surety has arisen, can do so by adjusting the amount of FDRs against the defaulted money.