Advanced Search Results

Ashok Mahansing Bajaj H.U.F. Vs. Elegant Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Othe ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : SICA

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 37, Rules 2 and 3; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 3(2), 15, 16 and 22; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 17, 18, 25, 126, 127, 128, 140 and 141; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 37; Industrial (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951; Companies Act, 1956

Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR242; 2000(3)BomCR169; (2000)1BOMLR968; 2000(2)MhLj855

said bill of exchange as principal debtors. 'Contract of guarantee' is defined under section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and so also 'surety', 'principal debtor' and 'creditor' are defined in the said section. Section 126 of the

M. RamnaraIn Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State Trading Corporation of I ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 30, 32, 80 and 117; Companies Act, 1956; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 141; Constitution of India - Article 133; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 76, 130 and 134; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 37; Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 - Sections 55 and 57

Reported in : AIR1988Bom45; 1988(2)BomCR59

amount being satisfied. In the case of surety's liability under the Contract Act, Section 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes that a surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has against the

State Bank of India Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court : Delhi

Subject : Contract

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 131; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 72

Reported in : I(1996)BC251; 57(1995)DLT55

entitled to recover any amount from defendant no. 1 under the provisions of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 Ifso, to what amount is the plaintiff entitled and on what basis?2. Is the plaintiff entitled to the

Mustt. Jubeda Khatun Vs. Sulaiman Khan

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Civil

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 111; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 16; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 118; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 34 - Order 34, Rule 11

of Section 111 of the Evidence Act, the provisions of Section 114 illustration (c), Section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872 and Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 need be suitably amended and the principles applicable to

M/s. India Cements Investments Services Limited, Represented by its As ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

cross examination (before the trial Court) that he had not filed the Contract Note and that he does not know ordinarily when shares were purchased, … Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section2(n), Section 378 Reserve Bank of India Amendment Act, 2006 Section 45-U (a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 45 Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Section 2(g) Negotiable Instruments Act Section … S.T.C.No.823 of 2010 dated 27.12.2012, had, inter alia, observed that for the 'Legally Enforceable Debt' as seen under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Respondent/Accused had issued Ex.P5 to P7 - Cheques and when they were

M.S. Anirudhan Vs. the Thomco's Bank Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 87; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 25

Reported in : AIR1963SC746; [1963]33CompCas279(SC); [1990]2SCR410; [1977]SuppSCR984; [1963]Supp1SCR63

inadequacy of consideration does not avoid a contract as stated in Explanation 2 of s. 25 of the Contract Act, 1872, and therefore the Bank's undertaking to advance upto Rs. 20,000/- could support the appellant's promise to guarantee up

Virender Singh Vs. Laxmi NaraIn and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Negotiable Instruments Rules; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 2, 10, 20, 23, 24, 65, 70 and 72

Reported in : I(2007)BC530; 2007CriLJ2262

petitioner before this Court is that in the background of the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the payment of money that was made by the complainant to the accused was not lawful and, thereforee, … judgment dated 21.08.2004 and order dated 09.09.2004, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and directed him to be

Dinesh B. Chokshi and Others Vs. Rahul Vasudeo Bhatt and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

to a written promise to pay the said debt within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? (ii) If it amounts to such a promise, does such a promise, by itself, create any legally enforceable … promise, does such a promise, by itself, create any legally enforceable debt or other liability as contemplated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? 3. We have heard Shri A.P. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel who was

Jayantilal Goel Vs. Zubeda Khanum

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 87; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 to 104; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 100; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 65

Reported in : AIR1986AP120

of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 65 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 - appeal filed against Order decreeing recovery of sum based on pro-note - pro-note materially altered - as

Kotharaju Narayana Rao Vs. Tekumalla Ramachandra Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Contract

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 4, 5 and 118; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 10, 23 and 219; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 8

Reported in : AIR1959AP370

- Sections 4, 5 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 10, 23 and 219 of Contract Act, 1872 - defendant agreed to sell his land to company - sale price was in excess of market value … the non-examination of Venkatachalam by the plaintiff was immaterial, as the defendant had to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The noncompletion of the sale was also in his view immaterial as