Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 135 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1969
Section 128 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Citibank N.A. vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. on 17 May, 1982
With respect to the learned Judge the view
expressed by him runs counter to the decision of the
Privy Council in Hodges v. Delhi and London Bank
Ltd. Reliance placed by Mr. Dwarkadas on the division
bench decision in K. R. Chitguppi Company's case is
totally misconceived. In fact that judgment supports the
case of the respondent than the appellant. This is clear
from the following observations:
T. Raju Setty vs Bank Of Baroda on 20 December, 1990
This decision has been followed in
T. Raju Setty v. Bank of Baroda, and similar is the
view taken by the Madras High Court in A.R.
Krishnaswamy Iyer v. Travencore National Bank Ltd.,
AIR 1940 Madras 437. A learned single Judge of this
Court (Rane J.)
A.R. Krishnaswami Aiyar And Anr. vs The Travancore National Bank, Ltd., ... on 7 December, 1939
This decision has been followed in
T. Raju Setty v. Bank of Baroda, and similar is the
view taken by the Madras High Court in A.R.
Krishnaswamy Iyer v. Travencore National Bank Ltd.,
AIR 1940 Madras 437. A learned single Judge of this
Court (Rane J.)
Central Bank Of India vs M/S. Multi Block Private Ltd. And Others on 16 January, 1997
has categorically held in Central Bank
of India v. Multi Block Private Ltd., that clauses in the
guarantee bond waiving the rights under Chapter VIII
of the Contract Act and other clauses for securing loan
advanced cannot be said to be violative of the public
policy or tainted with immorality. On the other hand
the public policy should be that one should not allow to
defeat the debt of the creditor.
U. P. Sunni Central Wakf Board vs Md. Alim & Ors on 7 May, 1971
The decision by
Wahane J. in the case of Central Bank v. Ali Mohd.
that the surety's consent to variation has to be
simultaneously with novation does not lay down the
correct law.