<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (2) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176152</link>
    <description>Banking dealings involving cheques sent for collection can be treated as authorised where the customer ratifies the banker&#039;s collection steps, and the bank&#039;s conduct as collecting banker is not displaced merely because a demand draft was taken in substitution. The text also explains that reciprocal transactions such as overdrafts, cash deposits, and collection items may create a mutual, open and current account, with limitation running from the close of the year in which the last item was entered. On that basis, the claim was treated as not barred by limitation, and the majority sustained the bank&#039;s position despite a dissent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (2) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176152</link>
      <description>Banking dealings involving cheques sent for collection can be treated as authorised where the customer ratifies the banker&#039;s collection steps, and the bank&#039;s conduct as collecting banker is not displaced merely because a demand draft was taken in substitution. The text also explains that reciprocal transactions such as overdrafts, cash deposits, and collection items may create a mutual, open and current account, with limitation running from the close of the year in which the last item was entered. On that basis, the claim was treated as not barred by limitation, and the majority sustained the bank&#039;s position despite a dissent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>