Dilip v. The Ambika Mahila Sahkari Bank
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 ss. 43, 145
Judgment
Shri D. G. Nagode, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 11TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . Shri Nagode, the learned counsel on instructions of the petitioner states that, the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition as such, is disposed of as infructuous.
#2. Shri Nagode, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was a guarantor and he may be given liberty to recover the said amount from the principal borrower. If the amount is paid by the guarantor, the guarantor has right to recover the 2 wp 4995.09 amount from the principal as per the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. Explanation to Section 43 of the Contract Act and Sec. 145 of Contract Act are explicit and clear. As such, no question of passing any separate orders in that regard. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Contract Act, 1872 — ss. 43, 145.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Jul 2011. The bench was S V GANGAPURWALA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.