Hamtramack V Bank - Law Dictionary Search Results
Banking
VII, List 1, Entry 45) In ordinary parlance 'banking' is business transactions of a bank, Vimal Chandra Grover v. Bank of India, (2000) 5 SCC 122 (130): AIR 2000 SC 2181. [Banking Regulation Act 1949 (10 of 1949),
Cheque
specially to himself and the customer has no title or a defective title thereto.' But see Underwood, Ltd. v. Bank of Liverpool, 1924 (1) KB 775; and Lloyds Bank, Ltd. v. Savory & Co., (1933) 49 TLR 116.
Consideration
the one party, or some forebearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other, Fleming v. Bank of New Zealand, (1900) AC 577 (586). Means everything receive in return for the supply of services or
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Estoppel
must be a representation of an existing fact and must be acted on before it is corrected, Vagliano v. Bank of England, 1891 AC 107; Chadwick v. Manning, (1896) AC 231. The representation must be made by a
Joint-tenancy
(Stock-holders Relief) Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 39), passed inconsequence of Law Guarantee and Trust Society v. Bank of England, (1890) 24 QBD 406, which provides that such stock 'may be transferred to and held in
Disposition of company property
if it occurs after the commencement of the winding up is avoided by s. 127, Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd. v. Bank of Ireland, (2001) 2 WLR 290. Disposition of company property, where a company withdraws a sum of money
Disposition of the company's property
in paying the cheque, debits the cheque against the company's credit balance with the bank, Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd. v. Bank of Ireland (CA), (2001) Ch LR 555. A control for the disposition of land and an effected disposition;
Under reserve
The balance of convenience clearly lies in allowing the normal banking transactions to go forward, United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, AIR 1981 SC 1426 (1440): (1981) 2 SCC 766: (1981) 3 SCR 300.
Negligence
be compensated under this Sub-s. must cause some loss or injury to him, Consumer Unity & Trust Society v. Bank of Baroda, (1995) 2 SCC 150 (153). (ii) 'Negligence' is the omission to do something which a reasonable
House of Commons
customs and excise and to income tax. The Act was passed in consequence of the decision in Bowles v. Bank of England, (1913) 1 Ch 57. The House of Commons acting collectively in a matter falling within the
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free