Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)Section 30 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
S. Chattanatha Karayalar vs The Central Bank Of India And Others on 9 March, 1965
26. So far as the argument of the appellants on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Chattalatha Karayalar's case (supra) is concerned, in my view, that decision was given in the facts of that case. The ratio of that decision is not applicable to the present case. A decision has to be considered in the facts of that case and not divorced from the facts in order to find out its ratio.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Amresh Tiwari vs Lalta Prasad Dubey & Anr on 11 April, 2000
Moreover as relied on behalf of the appellants the Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Tiwari v. Lalla Prasad Dubey (supra), has observed in para 10 as follows:
Section 32 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993
M.A. Sassoon And Sons Limited vs The International Banking Corporation on 27 May, 1927
18. On behalf of the respondent No. 1 Bank, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Privy Counsel in the case of M.A. Sassoon and Sons v. International Banking Corporation AIR 1927 P.C. 195, wherein it is held that in order to absolve the drawers of the bills of exchange from the liability under the bills, they must show that the transaction is without recourse. That was a case where the respondents had discounted the drafts only on a letter of advice and the appellants not having proved that the transaction was without recourse, they were held liable.
1