Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.34 seconds)
Canara Bank vs Vijaya Bank on 1 October, 1991 cites

Indian Bank vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. on 1 March, 1980

Before us, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, Mr. V. S. Subrahmanyan, pointed out that before the trial court, both the drafts, exhibits A-3 and A-4, were placed under ultra violet lamp in open court and that both counsel saw the entries on the draft and agreed that they were originally issued as stated in the plaint. So, the parties are agreed that both the drafts were forged ones and hence void altogether. So, as in the court below, here also, the submission by the appellant is that since the defendant-bank was negligent in opening current account in the name of the above-said Krishnamurthi without proper introduction, it should make good the loss caused to the plaintiff and that, therefore, it cannot get protection under section 131 read with section 131A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the court below erred in not following the decision in Indian Bank v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., cited before it, on the ground that the facts in the abovesaid decision were distinguishable from the facts in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Indian Overseas Bank vs Industrial Chain Concern on 7 November, 1989

Thus, Indian Overseas Bank v. Industrial Chain Concern , and Indian Bank v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., , are distinguishable and in the present case, since there is no requisite plea by the appellant-plaintiff as stated above or at any rate no evidence was brought to our notice to establish the said requisite plea, we hold that the defendant-respondent is protected under section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 39 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 Next