Whether guarantor will be liable for pre-existing debt/liability prior to date of entering in to guarantee contract?

 In view of the foregoing discussion, there appears to be no controversy as
to the fact that the Guarantee Deeds executed by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on
30.8.1974 rendered them personally liable for any transactions or advances
made by the Appellant Bank to the Respondent Company after 30.8.1974.
There is also no controversy whatsoever that the Bank account lay dormant after
this date, all dealings having been transacted much prior thereto. Such being
the position, it is not open to the Appellant Bank to pursue Respondent Nos. 2 to
4 for recovery of debts incurred by the Respondent Company in favour of the
Appellant Bank. We may clarify that our decision is founded on the evidence
that has been recorded in this suit. We should not be misunderstood to have
held that a guarantor can, in no circumstances be fastened with liabilities which

had been incurred in the past which the guarantor assumed liability for.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3654 OF 2006
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
Vs.
VIRUDHUNAGAR STEEL ROLLING MILLS
LTD. & ORS.
Dated:December 29, 2015.
Citation:(2015) 16 SCC207

Print Page

Whether it can be held that cheques were issued as security cheque if liability and consideration is proved?

 The argument that the respondent had no liability to
liquidate the debt owed by Nazimul Islam, has not impressed
us. What is important is whether the cheques were supported
by consideration. Besides the fact that there is a presumption
that a negotiable instrument is supported by consideration
there was no dispute that such a consideration existed in as
much as the cheques were issued in connection with the
discharge of the outstanding liability against Nazimul Islam. At
any rate the endorsement made by the respondent on the
promissory note that the cheques can be presented for
encashment after 25-09-2007 clearly shows that the cheques
issued by him were not ornamental but were meant to be
presented if the amount in question was not paid within the
extended period. The High Court in our view fell in error in
upsetting the conviction recorded by the Courts below who had
correctly analysed the factual situation and applied the law
applicable to the same.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 82-83 OF 2016

Don Ayengia 
V
The State of Assam & Anr.
Dated;January 28, 2016
T.S. THAKUR, J.

Print Page

When insurance companies can not claim that liability to pay compensation be apportioned between them?

 The learned counsel Shri Kukday does not
dispute the fact that thee was no pleading before the Tribunal
by the respondent No. 2 Reliance
General Insurance
Company in the written statement that in case it is found that

the owners are entitled to reimbursement, then the liability to
pay the compensation awarded should be proportionately
divided between the two insurance companies with whom the
vehicle was insured on the date of occurrence of accident on
29.01.2008. The contention, therefore, does not deserve any
consideration at this appellate stage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2015
Gopalrao Punjaji Gayki,

...VERSUS...
Gopal s/o Dnyandeo Wakode,

CORAM:R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 14 th January, 2016 .
Citation;2016(2) ALLMR386

Print Page

Whether Banker can exercise general lien over property owned by husband for liability incurred by wife?

 In conclusion it may be held that the question of the

husband's implicitly incurring a liability on the contract entered into

by his wife with a third party, in the absence the husband's express or

implied consent thereto, does not arise. Had it been a case of contract

between wife and husband, given the statutory obligation of spousal

maintenance, the parameters, of course, would have differed.

      27. Veering back to the facts of the case, I may observe that




evidently the wife contracted, as the record reveals, the loan having

provided the sureties, who do not include her husband. The husband,

in fact, contracted the loan subsequently. In my considered view, the

Bank's plea that it bona fide believed that the petitioner could offer

his property as security is to be discounted. For by the time the wife

took the loan, the husband was not at all in the picture--his loan was

subservient.

      28. Unless a person is a party to a loan transaction in whichever

capacity, the question of the Bank's exercising the general lien vis-

vis the property of that person--even if he or she were the spouse of

the contracting party--does not arise. Put differently, it falls foul of

the contractual obligations of the banker and customer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT:

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

         TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/
                           WP(C).No. 2527 of 2015 (M)
                            
         LONANKUTTY ANTONY @ T.L.ANTONY, 
Vs

        THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
             DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
               ----------------------------------
                    W.P. (C) No. 2527 of 2015 (M)
               ----------------------------------
                Dated this the 8th day of March, 2016.

                     

Print Page

Whether manager can be held guilty for eBay ads? Liability of intermediaries in case of online sale

Supreme Court on Friday decided to examine protection to web intermediaries which are open to public for posting items for online sale. 

The issue came up for adjudication before a bench of Justices Dipak Mishra and P C Pant when one Sharat Babu Digumarti moved a petition challenging framing of charge against him by a Delhi court under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code just because he was a senior manager of eBay site bazee.com in 2004 when a sexually explicit MMS clip was uploaded by a registered user, Ravi Raj, for sale. 

The registered user uploaded the MMS clip of a schoolgirl allegedly filmed by her boyfriend on eBay around 8 am on November 27, 2004 priced at Rs 128 per clip of which eBay was to get Rs 3 per download. Before the clip was taken off from the site, there were eight transactions with buyers from different parts of the country. The site had even disbursed money to the registered user as payment from buyers. 

Print Page

When liability of guarantor is not co-extensive with that of principal debtor ?

 We are of the opinion that the questions that
need to be decided by us are regarding the
liability of the guarantor under Section 128 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The legislature has
succinctly stated that the liability of the
guarantor is co-extensive with that of the
principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided
by the contract. This Court has decided on this
question, time and again, in line with the intent
of the legislature. In Ram Kishun and Ors. v.
State of U.P. and Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 511, this
Court has held that “in view of the provisions of
Section 128 of the Contract Act, the liability of
the guarantor/surety is co-extensive with that of
the debtor.” The only exception to the nature of
the liability of the guarantor is provided in the

Section itself, which is only if it stated
explicitly to be otherwise in the Contract.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.10173 of 2011)
Central Bank of India … Appellant
:Versus:
C.L. Vimla & Ors. … Respondents
Citation; 2015(4) ALLMR414 SC

Print Page

Whether Decree of divorce absolve husband from liability under Domestic Violence Act?

Deciding a case of domestic violence, where the decree of divorce had been obtained subsequently, the Court held that an act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) including monetary relief under Section 20, Child Custody under Section 21, Compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the DV Act. 

In the present case, the appellant obtained an ex parte ‘Khula’ from Mufti under the Muslim Personal Law on 09.05.2008 and filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act on 29.09.2009 alleging that the respondent was not providing maintenance to her and her child under Sections 8 to 23 of the DV Act. The bench of Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and S.A. Bobde, JJ, considering the fact that the respondent had challenged the ex parte ‘Khula’ and had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, held that it cannot be concluded that the decree of divorce was granted on 09.05.2008.

Moreover, the Court was of the opinion that even if after obtaining the decree of divorce, the wife who had shared the household in the past but was no longer residing with the husband, can file a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act if subjected to domestic violence seeking relief under Section 18 to 23 of the DV Act. In the present case, where the parties were represented by Shilpa Singh and KC Dua, the alleged domestic violence took place between January, 2006 and September, 2007. Hence, the Court held that even if it is accepted that the appellant had obtained ex parte ‘Khula’ under the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti on 09.05.2008, the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was maintainable.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8056 of 2013)

Decided On: 18.09.2014

Juveria Abdul Majid Patni
Vs.
Atif Iqbal Mansoori

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Sharad Arvind Bobde, JJ.

Print Page

Whether liablity Can Be Fixed On Any Person On The basis Of entry in books of account?

" An account presupposes the

existence of two persons such as a

seller and a purchaser, creditor

and debtor. Admittedly, the alleged

diaries in the present case are not

records of the entries arising out

of a contract. They do not contain

the debts and credits. They can at

the most be described as a

memorandum kept by a person for his

own benefit which will enable him

to look into the same whenever the

need arised to do for his future

purpose. Admittedly the said

diaries were not being maintained

on day-to day basis in he course of

business. There is no mention of

the dates on which the alleged

payment were made. In fact the

entries there in are on monthly

basis. Even the names of the

persons whom the alleged payments

were made do not find a mention in

full. they have been shown in

abreviated form. Only certain

'letters' have been written against

their names which are within the

knowledge of only the scribe of the

said diaries as to what they stand

for and whom they refer to."

After having held that the documents were neither books of account nor kept in the regular course of business the High Court observed that even if they were admissible under Section 34, they were not, in view of the plain language of the Section , sufficient enough to fasten the liability on the head of a person, against whom they were sought to be used.

Supreme Court of India

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998

Author: M.K. Mukherjee

Bench: M Mukherjee, S Kurdukar, K Thomas

Leave granted.

Print Page