Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55436 (8.38 seconds)

Ravi Chandran vs Subramanian on 24 June, 2005

mandate holder, who was competent and authorised to sign on behalf of the account holder or on behalf of the drawer. Therefore, the mandate holder ... that the mandate holder is not the account holder, though he is the authorised signatory on behalf of the account holder. Unfortunately, the trial Court
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Ravi Chandran vs Subramanian on 24 June, 2005

mandate holder, who was competent and authorised to sign on behalf of the account holder or on behalf of the drawer. Therefore, the mandate holder ... that the mandate holder is not the account holder, though he is the authorized signatory on behalf of the account holder. Unfortunately the Trial Court
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Krishna Trading Company vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 January, 2017

petitioner had given mandate to her son to sign cheques, she   is bound by the acts committed by the mandate­holder and therefore ... that   the   mandate   holder   is   not   the   account   holder,   though  he  is  the  authorized  signatory  on  behalf  of  the  account  holder.   Unfortunately   the   Trial   Court
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Sh. Narender Singh vs . on 10 December, 2018

said Chandrika, the proprietor, is the mandate giver. It is crucial to examine whether the mandate holder can be held liable under Section ... mandate or any of the member and in this way alone, the accused in this case had signed the cheque as mandate holder and therefore
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Complainant vs M/S. Point Plastics on 24 May, 2014

mandate holder, who was competent and authorised to sign on behalf of the account holder or on behalf of the drawer. Therefore, the mandate holder ... that the mandate holder is not the account holder, though he is the authorised signatory on behalf of the account holder......... 12.The learned counsel
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Complainant vs M/S. Point Plastics on 24 May, 2014

mandate holder, who was competent and authorised to sign on behalf of the account holder or on behalf of the drawer. Therefore, the mandate holder ... that the mandate holder is not the account holder, though he is the authorised signatory on behalf of the account holder........ 12.The learned counsel
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Complainant vs M/S. Point Plastics on 24 May, 2014

mandate holder, who was competent and authorised to sign on behalf of the account holder or on behalf of the drawer. Therefore, the mandate holder ... that the mandate holder is not the account holder, though he is the authorised signatory on behalf of the account holder........... 12.The learned counsel
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Complainant vs M/S. Point Plastics on 24 May, 2014

mandate holder, who was competent and authorised to sign on behalf of the account holder or on behalf of the drawer. Therefore, the mandate holder ... that the mandate holder is not the account holder, though he is the authorised signatory on behalf of the account holder.......... 12.The learned counsel
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next