<?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>1981 (2) TMI 248 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193676</link>
    <description>The article explains that, under the Bank&#039;s statutory framework and regulations, an authorised Branch Manager may sign and verify pleadings, execute a vakalatnama, and institute proceedings for disputes arising from the branch, because documents connected with legal proceedings fall within the delegated authority. It also notes that for claims based on a running cash credit account, limitation is governed by the applicable Limitation Act article for running accounts, so a suit may remain timely where the last entry is recent. The discussion further states that absence of notice to a surety does not defeat the claim unless prejudice is shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:27:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (2) TMI 248 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193676</link>
      <description>The article explains that, under the Bank&#039;s statutory framework and regulations, an authorised Branch Manager may sign and verify pleadings, execute a vakalatnama, and institute proceedings for disputes arising from the branch, because documents connected with legal proceedings fall within the delegated authority. It also notes that for claims based on a running cash credit account, limitation is governed by the applicable Limitation Act article for running accounts, so a suit may remain timely where the last entry is recent. The discussion further states that absence of notice to a surety does not defeat the claim unless prejudice is shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>