SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(AP) 478

A.SEETHARAM REDDY
State Bank of Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Nagabhushanam – Respondent


A. SEETHARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE short, but a fairly substantial question that falls for determination in this second appeal is, whether a promissory note executed in favour of a guarantor, who endorsed it in favour of the bank, which lent the amount to the original executant of the promissory note, will enable the banker to successfully lay a claim against the guarantor, while giving up the original executant ?

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, which is the bank, filed the suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The first defendant, who is the first respondent herein, was having a hotel business and he was given credit facility to the extent of Rs. 2,000 against the personal guarantee of the second defendant, who is the second respondent herein. In respect of the above loan facility, a demand promissory note for Rs. 2,000 was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and later it was endorsed by the second defendant in favour of the appellant bank. Also an agreement of cash credit executed by the first defendant along with the second defendant were taken in favour of the appellant bank. Though the first defendant availed of the entire credit facility, nothing was paid. Hen









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top