In order to ascertain the obligations of the banks in India with regards to alteration in a negotiable instrument, the following cases could be cited.
In the case Brahma Shum Shere Jung Bahadur v. Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China ,the following points have been laid down by the apex court:-
“Banker is protected even though he has paid a materially altered cheque if (i) the alterations were not apparent at the time of payment and (ii) he pays in due course, i.e. in good faith and without negligence If there is anything to arouse his suspicion, he should make enquiries for the same.
Mere indication that the writer of the body of the cheque is different from the signatory, is not sufficient to arouse suspicion.
Banker’s obligation to pay cheques arises out of contract. Under the contract, the banker may have agreed to follow an overdraft to the customer and pay his cheques upto an agreed limit. Here, the banker’s obligation to pay cheques is subject to the same rules as are applicable to a deposit account.”
In the case of Tanjore Permanent Bank Ltd. v. S.R. Rangachari, the question which arose was whether T.P Bank was entitled to debit the account of Mr. Rangachari with the amount of two cheques which were signed in blank by the customer and which were subsequently filled in by the accountant of the above bank. Mr. Rangachari had drawn the two cheques in favour of his two clerks and the two cheques appeared to have been discharged by the said clerks. Mr.
The case was heard in District Court and the respondents’ motion
3. The respondent, Mr Stephen Barker, had been employed by the appellant, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, for a number of years before being made redundant in March 2009 as a result of the bank restructuring the Corporation Financial Services (“CFS”) teams throughout the bank. He was informed that his employment with the bank would be terminated if he wasn’t redeployed within four weeks, but in the meantime had to turn in keys, mobile phone, and his access to his company email account, voicemail, and intranet was cut off and as such he did not receive any of the numerous emails that were sent to him about different openings for redeployment. His employment with the bank was terminated after the four week (plus an extra week for being over the
Problem 143 The issue is whether Johnson was discharged by the alteration of the check and what reply should the bank’s attorney make. UCC §§3-115, 3-407, 3-406, and 4-401(d), addressed the alteration of instruments, whether an instrument is properly payable, the issue of discharge, negligence of an altered instrument and the good faith rule. It also addressed which party is liable when an instrument is altered and when is the bank is responsible to re-credit an account. Specifically, for this issue, I will use UCC §4-401 (d): A bank that in good faith makes payment to a holder may charge the indicated account of its customer according to: (1) the original terms of the altered item; or (2) the terms of the completed item, even though the bank knows the item has been completed un- less the bank has notice that the completion was improper.
The regulation states, an employee must be restored to a position that is geographically proximate to their previous position. Furthermore, it is an interference of an employee’s right, to which he or she is entitled under FMLA, by failing to restore him or her to an equivalent position upon return to work. 29 C.F.R. § 825.215. In the case of McFadden v. Seagoville State Bank, the employee’s previous job before taking FMLA leave required a seven mile commute one way, which takes ten minutes to drive.
II. Surveillance expenses are community obligations if they are incurred for the common interest of the spouses. Whenever surveillance expenses are incurred for home improvement and serve the common interest of the spouses, the court has ruled it as a community obligation. In First Sec.
Cobell vs. Government The flied done against the government as a “Mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay of federal officials” was filled June 10, 1996 and it took years for settlement of 3.4 billion in December 2010 1.4 billion to the plaintiffs and 2 billion allocated for repurchase of lands distributed under Dawes act. I have done some research regarding on what has happen since Authorizing the funding and what are the recent appeals and lastly Cobell goal. However recently president Obama sings legislation authorizing the government funding of the final portion of the 3.4 billion settlements and Judge Hogan is in charge for the fairness hearing on the settlement in spring of 2011this is a year since the settlement.
Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.
The Supreme Court stated, since the board gave no explanation behind the foreswearing of a conscientious objector exemption, and it is difficult to decide on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice's letter that board depended, Ali's 1967 conviction must be overturned. The Incomparable Court choice was passed on June 28, 1971. As per that record, Marshall had reaccused himself on the grounds that he had been U.S. Specialist General when the case started, and the staying eight judges at first voted 5 to 3 to maintain Ali's conviction. Nonetheless, Harlan, relegated to compose the lion's share assessment, got to be persuaded that Ali's case to be a noncombatant was genuine subsequent to perusing foundation material on Black Muslim
Arrested after 36 patients died, Narendra Nagareddy had been held at his office following a raid from DEA agent. Around 12 of the 36 patients died from an overdose. Almost 40 federal and local agents raided his Jonesboro office as they seized even more assets at his home. As a psychiatrist of Jonesboro, Nagareddy has been over prescribing benzodiazepine and opiates for the last several years, which has led to multiple overdoses and deaths. People have come to Nagareddy for help, but instead of receiving help, they are met with deadly consequences.
The issue is whether M. Bega’s conduct was outrageous and intolerable. This element is satisfied when the outrageousness requirement "is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved." Id. "It is insufficient for a defendant to have acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal." Russo v. White 241 Va. 23. Rather, "liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
The birth of the Bureau of Indian Affairs signaled the beginning of a series of extermination and assimilation policies directed towards the native tribal nations, leaving a devastating impact on the Native American legacy. In an official apology on behalf of the BIA given at its 175th anniversary, Kevin Gover stated that “from the very beginning, the Office of Indian Affairs was an instrument by which the United States enforced its ambition against the Indian nations.” The interest of the Indian people was never the goal of the agency despite its title, and the real purpose of its foundation had always been the removal of Indian problems by forced policies. John Collier, the Commissioner of Indian affairs appointed By FDR, aimed to improve
The second case filed against the University of Michigan is Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The suit was filed by non-minority applicants who alleged the university for using race as the prevailing factor in admitting students and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI and Section 1981 (Green, 2004, p. 144). In their defense, the University of Michigan argued that the university seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the student body by enrolling a “meaningful number” of underrepresented minority students (Green, 2004, p. 147). In contrast to the Gratz case, the district court did not follow Justice Powell’s rationale in the Bakke case and the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The Constitution of the United States created in 1787 provided the framework for an egalitarian society where every free white male had equal representation and therefore promoted social happiness. However, in 1787 there were many groups of people in the newly formed United States of America that were not addressed, or even disenfranchised by the new Constitution. This included slaves, free women, and American Indians. Whereas free white males had their liberties fully expressed by the constitution including fair and equal representation, social happiness should include every group within the United States as every person in the States should have a say in government.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my letter of appeal. As you may know, I have been notified that my employment with Housing and Residence Life will end effective immediately. I was told that the reason for this decision was poor performance due to violation of the key policy. I believe that a mistake has been made in my case.
However, it must be determined whether Das’s promise to come until Monday constitutes sufficient consideration. Since, no deposit was made that is there was not sufficient consideration. Das would have to prove that he gave some sort of consideration to Ali to keep the offer open and if Das has taken a bank loan, the court may consider it as a valid consideration. Otherwise, the agreement does not stand according to the law. Therefore, Das cannot have any legal action against