Section 341 if two people share a mutual commitment by Debt which is the same object. Both cases and debts that are due to be paid know that You of the debtor party. Shall be free from debt. With its offset each other just as much of the match in both the debt unless the debt of the state party will not open the box to offset each other provisions in the previous paragraph. You shall not apply. If the parties to the conflict with the spirit shown. But this intention, you shall not. Raised as a defense of a third party acting in good faith.
Section 342 set-off that With one party can show Intent to the other party. The intent of this example, you will have conditions or Initial conditions or obtained at the end with no intention that in the previous paragraph. Him retroactively. Up until the time the debt that both parties will be eliminated each other for the first time.
Section 343 of the netting. Although the place which shall The second payment was deducted from each different department, but the applicant will need to use less debt. Damages to the other party. Damage to either. But it caused.
Section 344 claims to have fought in any. Claims that You may find out that the netting was not Furthermore, age, shall not sever the netting. Although the right to terminate the call then. But at the time could be eliminated with the other party claims that Stay to the right.
Section 345 but the debt by any of the information is illegal. You shall not take advantage of accounts receivable held by the debt. To set-off with the creditor.
Section 346 claims by any legal court order does not hold claims for income that may be taken to set-off was not
Section 347 if the debtor who has received three court orders prohibiting use of funds already Debt to be lifted out of which he acquired as a defense, but the creditors asking that confiscation. You may find that the lift was not
Section 348 if the party each partner has the right to claim many of which should be used to set-off to know that Parties who request debt will be less specific. Time that should remove the right to claim any thin offset each other if the offset debt represented by the not specified, then good, or if specified, but the other party Dgyong failure without delay, good, you, the provisions of section 328, paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis if the party seeking to set-off of debt and the interest Courts fee to the other party is also Chairman of the settlement, which is also know that You, the provisions of Section 329 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6961/2551.
Defendants debited the plaintiff's savings to pay the plaintiff's credit card debt outstanding. The exercise of an agreement by a credit card application. Not a set-off the Commercial Code, Section 344, without an agreement between the parties. Defendant has the right to debit the savings of the plaintiff. Although credit card debt and then terminate. Accused does not act in violation of the plaintiff.
That the plaintiff's appeal. Message to request a credit card to the credit card to expire before the defendant will be entitled to set-off, then the Direct Debit to the plaintiff's articulate Agreements intended to extend the life of. Which is prohibited by law and agreements that are intended as expressly prohibited by law. Or is contrary to ordre public or morality of the void under the Commercial Code, Section 150 is an agreement between the parties with respect to benefits not only affect third parties. And not expressly prohibited by law or morality of the people. Is not a problem in relation with the public order when the defendant does not have to fight them. In an appeal is not raised, then the admonition to love each other in civil court Forbidden to appeal under Article 225, paragraph one Civil Code Procedure.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5384/2551.
Income from credit card debt, whether the purchase of goods and services. Or withdraw cash from debt. Are a debt arising from the use of credit cards together. Is a 2-year old Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193 / 34 (7) may not enforce the separation of different age.
Of the state debt repayment to be made part of the interrupted life into it. The defendant must be made or agreed to do so the plaintiff Less Thon account of the defendant to pay credit card debt, which the exercise of set-off and without an agreed upon during contract as though the defendant did not dispute the objection will be considered criminal consent of the plaintiff's action was not such a find. If the defendant does not consider partial payment of the liability which will result in the prescription to be interrupted. Plaintiff's claims, so terminate the.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4895/2551.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 341 of the netting to the rules that must be placed on the two people have high levels of debt are bound to each other. And must have a debt with the same object as it is an object of the same debt as the amount of money or goods to the goods. Debt and both parties must be due then. It will be set-off for each other. Defendants owe the plaintiff unpaid wages, a money debt. Although the defendant argued that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff sole. Because the plaintiff a debt to be returned to the wheel motorcycle that plaintiff did not make the color treatment to any defendant. But the alleged debt is debt which is not the same object. And does not appear that the debt due depending on how If the rules are not subject to set-off. It is only where the defendant for payment with other items, as defined in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 321, which the defendant will do so only when the plaintiff, the creditors agree with the only But that was before the prosecution and the plaintiff sued the defendant after the parties agreed debt but can not agree. The plaintiff then withhold the wheel of the motorcycle on the plaintiff to the defendant for payment to the defendant and the defendant did not attest that Plaintiff to the defendant to agree to the wheel motorcycle appraisal settlement with the plaintiff, but how. Defendant may not take the wheel motorcycle plaintiff to withhold payment to the plaintiff's valuation is more as well. That the court hear the defendant's counterclaim does not need a set-off style is to raise the defendant's counterclaim is well But not restrict the defendant to the counterclaim filed a new case.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4853/2551.
Spending on investment and a Commercial Code, Section 1119, paragraph two strictly prohibited by law shall not deduct debt to the plaintiff company as shareholders. Defendant has not raised the provisions of Bankruptcy Act 2483 Section 102 deduction for the debt to recourse debt secured under the Court's order allows the plaintiff to receive payment and then have.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3007/2551.
The same can be set-off must be two people and a commitment to each other. The debt is the same object as though its hours will be affiliated with the defendant company, but am also a legal entity separate from the defendant at a shareholders differ from each other. The balance of separate account even if its hours will be entitled to claim as a creditor or the defendant, a plaintiff is not entitled to such set-off the debt with a debt that the defendant owe the plaintiff. However, because of liability between the plaintiff and the firm commitment of hours is the plaintiff and the company debts between the hours of the plaintiff and the defendant is a commitment between the plaintiff and the defendant, a separate set-off would be incompatible.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5954/2550.
The plaintiff was a member fund. Later, the plaintiff resigned from the fund without the members resigned from the fund and contribute money to the interests of the plaintiff already And have paid contributions and the benefits of contributions of 531,702.57 baht to the defendant as it is the case, the plaintiff resigned from the fund without resignation in accordance with the Fund's Article 37 paragraph (7) contributions and benefits. Contribution of the defendant is required to keep the money instead to fund paid to the plaintiff when leaving the company. And the plaintiff is entitled to receive matching funds, so when the plaintiff's resignation pleasure of both parties. The plaintiff is entitled to receive matching funds. Such money is a contribution to the environment and the benefits of contributions to the Fund. Not return to the defendant in any way. Claims on the funds can not be transferred in accordance with Provident Fund Act's Section 23, 24, and may not be set-off under section 346 Commercial Code.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7924/2549.
Debt allowed under the Supreme Court by the petitioner and the defendant is a debt unpaid debt from the defendant to hire the petitioner. Part of the barker seized from the defendant as a truck right in the petitioner as the owner of the seized property purchase from the defendant if the defendant in breach of contract. Which is considered to terminate the contract by default. Debt as allowed under the Supreme Court is indebted to the petitioner filed a leasing fee to the defendant prior to termination of contracts outstanding. Part of the barker seized trucks back then released if there is damage, it is the admonition to the defendant during the bargaining because it is occurring after the termination of contracts. In both cases, debt is debt that is the opposite of each other. Set-off may not be compatible. When the petitioner, a creditor under the Supreme Court can not take payments from other assets of the defendant petitioner is entitled to the average wealth in the civil case under Section 290 Civil Code Procedure.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7544/2548.
Check disputed by the defendant is liable under the fourth edition of the Commercial Code, Section 900 set-off payment for the defendant shared the principal debt by borrowing money with interest is disputed checks. Defendant would be deemed to share the debt that the plaintiff claims that defendants owe the number to 800,000 U.S. debt set-off with the check dispute in court. Attest the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed between the parties and the liabilities to the plaintiff's share deducted to pay another 1.2 million baht loan debts that the defendant owe the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was OK, and then check the back of the net debt debt to the defendant and the defendant has to pay the plaintiff's share instead. After deducting the outstanding debt each defendant and plaintiff's payment of 759,040 baht, which the defendant was ordered to pay by check, No. 4, which share the struggle that the debt must be paid to the plaintiff to the defendant is already suspended by the netting. The plaintiff does not have to pay the debt to defendant. Claims held that the defendant be set-off to have fought in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 344 states that "any claim to have fought on. Claims that you will probably find out that the netting was not "so the defendant has the right to claim a share instead of the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff a check for dispute set-off can not
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4149/2548.
The legal right to set-off for creditors in the reorganization under Section 90/33 is a property management system in which the cause of justice for creditors to bring their debt burden to pay debts to the debtor. already in the court's order to deduct the debt reorganization may obtain payment for the recovery business.
Section 90/33 which states that "Creditors who are entitled to obtain repayment of a debt reorganization debtor at the time of order for reorganization" would mean at the time the court has ordered the reorganization of the debtor. Receivables and payables are indebted to each other. Period of time does not mean that the debtor during the reorganization, so the debt will be payable to the netting. Creditors have a debt debtor before the court has ordered the reorganization. Debt is payable to such set-off the debt, creditors have claims to the debtor.
If the debtor, creditors of debt after a court ordered rehabilitation. And claims to the debtor after a court ordered rehabilitation as well. Creditors and debtors would be the debt set-off against each other as well by the Commercial Code, Section 341 is payable if the party seeking set-off, then it would be done by the intention of the plan or the plan administrator, as the case.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2163/2548.
The Commercial Code, Section 341, paragraph one is not set any conditions but that the netting between them must have the consent of the other first. Plaintiff when the defendant is a debtor as a guarantee. At the same time, it is a debtor of the plaintiff by the defendant debt notes. And the foreign debt is due then. When the facts do not appear as a defendant to the plaintiff that the contract guarantee. The two sides expressed their intention not to take on debt to each other then offset each other. Defendant has the right to such debt to offset each other. In need without the consent of the plaintiff in any way
Debt also has a defense to be set-off is not the Commercial Code, Section 344 refers to the debt that one party claims, then the other party in a dispute do not agree to any material. Which affects the liability of such debt or debts to be liable. The text in the document refers to the L 7 to find any text that is now denied liability. Or dispute of debt will not be liable in any way. If it does not hold that such debt is a debt to have a fight on.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3747/2547.
The objection is that creditors are entitled to receive payment for the rehabilitation of the debtor. The debtor deposits with the bank account against the account by including two against the deposit before the court has ordered the reorganization of the debtor. Deposits become the property of their objections from the deposit.
Section 342 set-off that With one party can show Intent to the other party. The intent of this example, you will have conditions or Initial conditions or obtained at the end with no intention that in the previous paragraph. Him retroactively. Up until the time the debt that both parties will be eliminated each other for the first time.
Section 343 of the netting. Although the place which shall The second payment was deducted from each different department, but the applicant will need to use less debt. Damages to the other party. Damage to either. But it caused.
Section 344 claims to have fought in any. Claims that You may find out that the netting was not Furthermore, age, shall not sever the netting. Although the right to terminate the call then. But at the time could be eliminated with the other party claims that Stay to the right.
Section 345 but the debt by any of the information is illegal. You shall not take advantage of accounts receivable held by the debt. To set-off with the creditor.
Section 346 claims by any legal court order does not hold claims for income that may be taken to set-off was not
Section 347 if the debtor who has received three court orders prohibiting use of funds already Debt to be lifted out of which he acquired as a defense, but the creditors asking that confiscation. You may find that the lift was not
Section 348 if the party each partner has the right to claim many of which should be used to set-off to know that Parties who request debt will be less specific. Time that should remove the right to claim any thin offset each other if the offset debt represented by the not specified, then good, or if specified, but the other party Dgyong failure without delay, good, you, the provisions of section 328, paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis if the party seeking to set-off of debt and the interest Courts fee to the other party is also Chairman of the settlement, which is also know that You, the provisions of Section 329 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6961/2551.
Defendants debited the plaintiff's savings to pay the plaintiff's credit card debt outstanding. The exercise of an agreement by a credit card application. Not a set-off the Commercial Code, Section 344, without an agreement between the parties. Defendant has the right to debit the savings of the plaintiff. Although credit card debt and then terminate. Accused does not act in violation of the plaintiff.
That the plaintiff's appeal. Message to request a credit card to the credit card to expire before the defendant will be entitled to set-off, then the Direct Debit to the plaintiff's articulate Agreements intended to extend the life of. Which is prohibited by law and agreements that are intended as expressly prohibited by law. Or is contrary to ordre public or morality of the void under the Commercial Code, Section 150 is an agreement between the parties with respect to benefits not only affect third parties. And not expressly prohibited by law or morality of the people. Is not a problem in relation with the public order when the defendant does not have to fight them. In an appeal is not raised, then the admonition to love each other in civil court Forbidden to appeal under Article 225, paragraph one Civil Code Procedure.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5384/2551.
Income from credit card debt, whether the purchase of goods and services. Or withdraw cash from debt. Are a debt arising from the use of credit cards together. Is a 2-year old Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193 / 34 (7) may not enforce the separation of different age.
Of the state debt repayment to be made part of the interrupted life into it. The defendant must be made or agreed to do so the plaintiff Less Thon account of the defendant to pay credit card debt, which the exercise of set-off and without an agreed upon during contract as though the defendant did not dispute the objection will be considered criminal consent of the plaintiff's action was not such a find. If the defendant does not consider partial payment of the liability which will result in the prescription to be interrupted. Plaintiff's claims, so terminate the.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4895/2551.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 341 of the netting to the rules that must be placed on the two people have high levels of debt are bound to each other. And must have a debt with the same object as it is an object of the same debt as the amount of money or goods to the goods. Debt and both parties must be due then. It will be set-off for each other. Defendants owe the plaintiff unpaid wages, a money debt. Although the defendant argued that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff sole. Because the plaintiff a debt to be returned to the wheel motorcycle that plaintiff did not make the color treatment to any defendant. But the alleged debt is debt which is not the same object. And does not appear that the debt due depending on how If the rules are not subject to set-off. It is only where the defendant for payment with other items, as defined in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 321, which the defendant will do so only when the plaintiff, the creditors agree with the only But that was before the prosecution and the plaintiff sued the defendant after the parties agreed debt but can not agree. The plaintiff then withhold the wheel of the motorcycle on the plaintiff to the defendant for payment to the defendant and the defendant did not attest that Plaintiff to the defendant to agree to the wheel motorcycle appraisal settlement with the plaintiff, but how. Defendant may not take the wheel motorcycle plaintiff to withhold payment to the plaintiff's valuation is more as well. That the court hear the defendant's counterclaim does not need a set-off style is to raise the defendant's counterclaim is well But not restrict the defendant to the counterclaim filed a new case.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4853/2551.
Spending on investment and a Commercial Code, Section 1119, paragraph two strictly prohibited by law shall not deduct debt to the plaintiff company as shareholders. Defendant has not raised the provisions of Bankruptcy Act 2483 Section 102 deduction for the debt to recourse debt secured under the Court's order allows the plaintiff to receive payment and then have.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3007/2551.
The same can be set-off must be two people and a commitment to each other. The debt is the same object as though its hours will be affiliated with the defendant company, but am also a legal entity separate from the defendant at a shareholders differ from each other. The balance of separate account even if its hours will be entitled to claim as a creditor or the defendant, a plaintiff is not entitled to such set-off the debt with a debt that the defendant owe the plaintiff. However, because of liability between the plaintiff and the firm commitment of hours is the plaintiff and the company debts between the hours of the plaintiff and the defendant is a commitment between the plaintiff and the defendant, a separate set-off would be incompatible.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5954/2550.
The plaintiff was a member fund. Later, the plaintiff resigned from the fund without the members resigned from the fund and contribute money to the interests of the plaintiff already And have paid contributions and the benefits of contributions of 531,702.57 baht to the defendant as it is the case, the plaintiff resigned from the fund without resignation in accordance with the Fund's Article 37 paragraph (7) contributions and benefits. Contribution of the defendant is required to keep the money instead to fund paid to the plaintiff when leaving the company. And the plaintiff is entitled to receive matching funds, so when the plaintiff's resignation pleasure of both parties. The plaintiff is entitled to receive matching funds. Such money is a contribution to the environment and the benefits of contributions to the Fund. Not return to the defendant in any way. Claims on the funds can not be transferred in accordance with Provident Fund Act's Section 23, 24, and may not be set-off under section 346 Commercial Code.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7924/2549.
Debt allowed under the Supreme Court by the petitioner and the defendant is a debt unpaid debt from the defendant to hire the petitioner. Part of the barker seized from the defendant as a truck right in the petitioner as the owner of the seized property purchase from the defendant if the defendant in breach of contract. Which is considered to terminate the contract by default. Debt as allowed under the Supreme Court is indebted to the petitioner filed a leasing fee to the defendant prior to termination of contracts outstanding. Part of the barker seized trucks back then released if there is damage, it is the admonition to the defendant during the bargaining because it is occurring after the termination of contracts. In both cases, debt is debt that is the opposite of each other. Set-off may not be compatible. When the petitioner, a creditor under the Supreme Court can not take payments from other assets of the defendant petitioner is entitled to the average wealth in the civil case under Section 290 Civil Code Procedure.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7544/2548.
Check disputed by the defendant is liable under the fourth edition of the Commercial Code, Section 900 set-off payment for the defendant shared the principal debt by borrowing money with interest is disputed checks. Defendant would be deemed to share the debt that the plaintiff claims that defendants owe the number to 800,000 U.S. debt set-off with the check dispute in court. Attest the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed between the parties and the liabilities to the plaintiff's share deducted to pay another 1.2 million baht loan debts that the defendant owe the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was OK, and then check the back of the net debt debt to the defendant and the defendant has to pay the plaintiff's share instead. After deducting the outstanding debt each defendant and plaintiff's payment of 759,040 baht, which the defendant was ordered to pay by check, No. 4, which share the struggle that the debt must be paid to the plaintiff to the defendant is already suspended by the netting. The plaintiff does not have to pay the debt to defendant. Claims held that the defendant be set-off to have fought in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 344 states that "any claim to have fought on. Claims that you will probably find out that the netting was not "so the defendant has the right to claim a share instead of the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff a check for dispute set-off can not
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4149/2548.
The legal right to set-off for creditors in the reorganization under Section 90/33 is a property management system in which the cause of justice for creditors to bring their debt burden to pay debts to the debtor. already in the court's order to deduct the debt reorganization may obtain payment for the recovery business.
Section 90/33 which states that "Creditors who are entitled to obtain repayment of a debt reorganization debtor at the time of order for reorganization" would mean at the time the court has ordered the reorganization of the debtor. Receivables and payables are indebted to each other. Period of time does not mean that the debtor during the reorganization, so the debt will be payable to the netting. Creditors have a debt debtor before the court has ordered the reorganization. Debt is payable to such set-off the debt, creditors have claims to the debtor.
If the debtor, creditors of debt after a court ordered rehabilitation. And claims to the debtor after a court ordered rehabilitation as well. Creditors and debtors would be the debt set-off against each other as well by the Commercial Code, Section 341 is payable if the party seeking set-off, then it would be done by the intention of the plan or the plan administrator, as the case.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2163/2548.
The Commercial Code, Section 341, paragraph one is not set any conditions but that the netting between them must have the consent of the other first. Plaintiff when the defendant is a debtor as a guarantee. At the same time, it is a debtor of the plaintiff by the defendant debt notes. And the foreign debt is due then. When the facts do not appear as a defendant to the plaintiff that the contract guarantee. The two sides expressed their intention not to take on debt to each other then offset each other. Defendant has the right to such debt to offset each other. In need without the consent of the plaintiff in any way
Debt also has a defense to be set-off is not the Commercial Code, Section 344 refers to the debt that one party claims, then the other party in a dispute do not agree to any material. Which affects the liability of such debt or debts to be liable. The text in the document refers to the L 7 to find any text that is now denied liability. Or dispute of debt will not be liable in any way. If it does not hold that such debt is a debt to have a fight on.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3747/2547.
The objection is that creditors are entitled to receive payment for the rehabilitation of the debtor. The debtor deposits with the bank account against the account by including two against the deposit before the court has ordered the reorganization of the debtor. Deposits become the property of their objections from the deposit.
