Section 856 is that the current contract. The contract, which two people agree that it is the successor to. Or in a set time either. Truncated to account for all or part of the debt incurred during his operation, but the two offset each other. And fixed payments, but the number of outstanding equity
Section 857 of the bills as listed in the current account. You shall be presumed that the conditions would have to pay if the tickets are not paid soon. The revocation list is a waste of time.
Section 858 If the parties do not specify that the deductive account by the time I remember. He is scheduled to take six months.
Section 859 any party to terminate the account and deductive account any time to waste if nothing appears to be inconsistent with these Terms.
Section 860 funds that have similar, if not yet paid. You interest from the date the account is broken down as follows.
Supreme Court in 2312/2550.
The defendant made the request to open a current account alone. Without an overdraft or loan agreement secured by any. Given the plaintiff. The application for an overdraft after only 3 days to allow the defendant to the plaintiff bank check withdrawal from your bank account than the plaintiff had not shown that he had known the defendant as well as special guests. Show that the defendant is bound to help. Managers, Samrong Branch plaintiff bank. People signed up to the defendant bank account. Ehืasom with the defendant's defense that the defendant entered into an agreement to allow home construction. After opening the check payable to the defendant for a sum not exceeding the amount of wages received. Construction house for Christmas. The defendant was stopped for a check withdrawal. The beach was incredible. I take into account the defendant's obligations to pay to listen to the fact that home construction. The defendant is to allow the current account. Managers, Samrong bank branch to pay the plaintiff to hire a home contractor payments. Debt to the defendant by bringing money into the account. And the defendant to withdraw a check paid by the construction contractor. Defendants do not intend to do the overdraft from the plaintiff, so if the beach. Do not take into account the defendant to repay the help. Default the defendant shall be Check the plaintiff is under no obligation to pay cash. Money to help the defendant. But somehow, but that helps. I paid the check to the defendant that the defendant is not in good faith. The fee for the channel. The construction account to pay for debt service. Defendants do not intend to overdraft from the plaintiff to help. A plaintiff bank branch managers, Samrong. The defendant would not be able to take out cash as it appears in this case. If the account does not exist. I refuse to pay the bank the check is not the claim or defense. Suspension of the construction contract to the beach. Responder or litigate to pay contractors from the slot. As soon as the evidence is still required to carry the channel. Regarded as a position as a bank manager. Samrong Branch plaintiff by defendant as a principal is not liable for the actions of their agents. The defendant received the money from the bank plaintiff, by mistake, that is the period in which the defendant is entitled to the defendant is not intended to be a legal relationship to legal overdraft with the plaintiff, the plaintiff has sued the money from the defendant as a debtor. overdraft is not.
Supreme Court to 667/2549.
The loan agreement includes an agreement to increase overdraft loan, overdraft which The current contract must be on time. The current contract is independent of a particular contract. The agreement will remain in the next book will have widespread and continuous. Within a reasonable time. The fact that Saturday.'ve Put money into the account for the deductive part of the current account of the final on March 14, 2526, then the current account is again from the date of Saturday. Died a long time, almost 12 years show that pharmacist. with the intent to terminate the contract with plaintiff by default. The plaintiff is a financial institution has the duty to inspect the accounts of customers at that time. The movement, however. When the pharmacist. This is a customer of the plaintiff is no account activity. The plaintiff would have to claim or to terminate the contract in a reasonable time. Exercise is not to take excessive interest in a long time like this. Held that the exercise of the plaintiff did not act in good faith. The contract is considered dissolved from within. With the intent to terminate the contract with plaintiff by default, is dated March 14, 2526, the day Saturday. Current account one last time. The plaintiff's claim for recovery under the overdraft has occurred since then. Claims under the contract is scheduled for the 10-year-old plaintiff, the case was filed on February 5, 2539 expiration of the 10-year lease liability so as to terminate the account. However, it appears that yet. To the land and buildings are mortgaged as collateral for a loan in the amount of 5.5 million baht plus interest at a rate of 15 percent per year, with the agreement that if the plaintiff, the mortgage money, not enough pay. allow the take of debt. Property until the debt under the account will expire at. It must be a Section 193/27 and Section 745, the plaintiff is the mortgagee to enforce payment of the mortgage assets, even when the debt. The mortgage insurance is to expire the next time. Be forced to pay interest on the unpaid after more than five years old. And remain in force only within the property. Mortgaged only. Forces of other assets can not. Although the mortgage contract is scheduled to be removed from the property until the end. If the mortgage is not enough money to pay their debts.
(Meeting No. 3 / 2548).
Supreme Court in 8117/2548.
Under the overdraft loan, the interest every day. And deadlines on a monthly basis at the closing end of the plaintiff every month and also stated that the plaintiff and the defendant is one of the traditions of the bank, the interest of the plaintiff every day and be sent on a monthly basis at the closing end of the month. It is the tradition of the Bank under an agreement between the parties. Which defines the legal period under Section 193 / 1, despite the end of the month is a holiday. Plaintiff's account at the end of the month is broken down by holding the open day the next day closing.
Supreme Court in 1584/2548.
Demand deposit account and current account overdraft only loan products. Thanawat believe the credit card. Clearly stated that Are intended to pay for goods and services. Arising from the use of credit cards. As well as to withdraw cash from accounts through automated teller machines. These transactions are in connection with the use of credit cards, totally. To open a current account is in turn used to make a withdrawal, but the current account is normally used to allow the defendants to pay debts arising from the use Credit card, but only one in particular. Not the case that the plaintiff had agreed to cut your debt, but its occurrence. Between plaintiff and defendant be eliminated. And would pay the remaining portion of the main characteristics of a spread account agreement under Section 856 loan that is right for overdraft loan or debt under current account, not the plaintiff. payments to the creditors of the defendant before. Allow the plaintiff or the defendant's credit card to withdraw cash from bank deposits. And then automatically charged to the defendant after the plaintiff constitutes a. Operators to get to work. The money was out due to the nature of the business credit card is valid for two years under Section 193/34 (7).
Supreme Court to 708/2548.
Please refer to the plaintiff, which by virtue of the Bank of Thailand On the banks act in the interest and discount, dated October 20, 2536, the enforcement of the contract between plaintiff and defendant overdraft. The plaintiffs charge the customer interest and discount on cash limit. Or breach the terms of payment at a rate not exceeding 19 per year, and calls from customers within the limits and terms of payment. The rates charged to retail customers excellent (MRR) is the rate of 13.75 per year plus 2 percent per year as a percentage of 15.75 per year for the plaintiff, the interest is triggered by the defendant that a contract issue. account for more than 19 percent per year, which is the interest rate charged to the cash limit or wrong. Conditions of payment. Interest rates than the general run of customers from the date of this Agreement. It is beyond the declared interest of the plaintiff. Not in accordance with the Bank of Thailand. And beyond the law is contrary to Section 14 of the Banking Act, which is prohibited by the Act do not exceed the rate of interest under Section 3 (a) the interest shall be void. I think the plaintiff interest on debt payments at a rate of 7.5 percent per year from the date of default under Section 224 paragraph one and only case of legal issues relating to public order. Despite being informed that a defendant does not dispute the accuracy of the current account and interest charged. Some time after the contract, including interest rates would have to sue the rate of 19 per year, it can not be forced upon request.
The overdraft is an agreement of the parties to a contract, a spread between the loan account would have to follow the methods of the current contract. What to do when they are broken down and called on account of payment balance current account, so if the parties continue to live on. It is not considered to have defaulted.
Supreme Court in 2877/2547.
The defendant is a limited partnership is an entity type. Registering the Partnership on July 13, 2536 registration of the liquidation on April 20, 2537, making an end-state corporate defendants. No authority to proceed from the date of completion of liquidation. The current account between the plaintiff and the defendant first must be ended and the deductive account the fact that a debt overdraft of approximately 2,132,418 baht, even later, will be withdrawn from the account and the funds deposited in the account. But when the defendant is a corporation and shall have no power to withdraw the condition. The debt is out of the account.One for the plaintiff. Which appeared in the cards, checking that the date March 11, 2539, the bank deposits as many times as 3,928,691.69 baht of debt of the defendant an amount of approximately 2,132,418 baht, the interest rate of 19.75 per year, not compounded by the plaintiff. Request from the date of April 20, 2537 until March 11, 2539 amounting to approximately USD 794,340.52 USD 2,926,758.52 is the total amount is less than the amount to which the funds in your account. It can not be said that a defendant owed the plaintiff. The second defendant as the guarantor and the land as security for a debt of the defendants are not liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 7080/2546.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to force the defendant to the plaintiff for payment under current account. The defendant agrees to withdraw money from your current account by check. Serve as proof that the plaintiff. Outstanding in the current account, which is the plaintiff sued the defendant. Liability of the defendant's shop, members of the plaintiff and the defendant used the credit card sales slip in May to buy from the defendant by the plaintiff's credit card to charge the plaintiff. Plaintiff to pay the current account of the defendant and the defendant deposited checks. Withdraw it. The plaintiff charged the defendant took the money from the Sun is not the amount deducted from the current account of the defendant. Will serve as proof that the current debt by the plaintiff and the defendant to account. Circulate why the defendant owes the plaintiff. The plaintiff also asks that the plaintiff sued the defendants under the current account. The defendant did not force any other contract, the court ruled that the defendant is liable to pay a debt to the plaintiff. It is diagnosed in the indictment.
Supreme Court in 5296/2546.
The current agreement that would open. Current opening for an account. If there is not enough money in the account of the defendant to pay the check. Typically, the plaintiff will refuse to pay altogether. However, if the plaintiff refused to pay the waiver. Defendants agree to be bound to pay the excess return as the plaintiff had requested. Overdraft with the plaintiff. The interest paid in excess of the account agreement that The plaintiff is entitled to charge compound interest monthly at the maximum rate of the Bank of the country. Thailand set to collect it. While making the request to open a current account with the Bank of Thailand. Commercial banks and other financial institutions, the interest rate announced by the Bank of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has announced the interest rates charged to the accounts of various types, and announce several changes in interest rates. In the case of the defendant. Based on current account of the defendant. The rate of interest. And the plaintiff to see that. The plaintiff charged the defendant at the same rate of interest on excess cash customers. Account, exceeds the amount and type of customer with no overdraft facility. The plaintiff is in the same group of customers who breach conditions. The interest of the plaintiff by the defendant in such an agreement to open. Current account Bank of Thailand And the plaintiff has done this.
Supreme Court to 686/2546.
Attorney general Not intended to represent any particular act. The prosecution did not identify the individual who is the debtor or the person being sued if any person shall have the power to one person or several people acting in more than one plaintiff is a power of attorney to sue the debtor for The plaintiff has no case. Limited number of cases and individuals. The plaintiff sued the defendant attorney to do it. Unauthorized use of plaintiff's attorney to sue the original defendant in this case.
The plaintiff sued the lecture. The defendant has entered into loan overdraft with the plaintiff in the amount of 1.5 million baht would be the highest interest rate announced by Bank of Thailand Property as security for loans and mortgages. Then there are checks to withdraw money from an account until now. After the defendant to withdraw money from the account number but a small amount of money into a deductive account. The plaintiff told the defendant to pay the debt and the mortgage. The plaintiff's debt was only on April 12, 2539, the date of termination of account. The defendant owed the plaintiff 1,877,571.48 Baht to calculate the interest on the lawsuit. This is part of the lawsuit. Be filed by the plaintiff to show clearly the condition of charge. Request, forcing the residents to settle claims that the defendant understood the charges. The process of calculating interest on the debt each month and each month a summary of the details can attest that the plaintiff class in consideration. The plaintiff sued, so do not be vague
In the first case, the plaintiff sued defendant to recover the debt in the mortgage and overdraft. Court judgments that have outstanding loans for overdraft loans are calculated. We need to raise the request of the plaintiff in this section. Without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring an action in this case within the time limit. The plaintiff sued the defendant, and later a lawsuit to recover the debt in overdraft of the same court ruled that the plaintiff did not sue, the court shall calculate interest by the plaintiff to sue and serve as proof of the same issues. The proceedings are over. The two cases also hold that the Court did not decide the issue of the lawsuit, the plaintiff sued the defendant is this case. The demolition was not a case in point is again ruled by reason. Same The plaintiff's case did not calculate the interest according to the Court of First Instance stated in the court before which proceedings are not about the case or issue a decision. I decided against it. Plaintiff has not filed or proceedings against a repeat.
Supreme Court to 388/2546.
Cases filed in court, the Code of Civil Procedure Section 131 (2) the court decision on the issue of the case by a written decision or order, and Section 148 (3) is an exception in a lawsuit over the case when the verdict or order. Then, the indictment Waste without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring a new indictment was filed. This case the plaintiff sued the defendant for payment under the loan agreement and the overdraft. Forced to mortgage the land secured. The defendant's contention that in many respects. Court would like to make a decision or order ruling on the issue. The case under Section 131 (2) The Court of Justice ruling on the issue of dismissing the lawsuit, the plaintiff was not cut. The plaintiff to prosecute the new thematic issues of interest to the plaintiff. Have the right to charge any interest. What are the issues that the payments under the loan or overdraft is not The Court agreed that the plaintiff does not refer to the current date. The Court considers that the overdraft will not know which end of the day. The defendant has paid the debt I owe one. The judge dismissed the plaintiff without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against the new. Plaintiff's interest is to allow the plaintiff to be entitled to have. It would be fair for both parties to find the defendant not disadvantaged in any way with the verdict of the Court of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 148 (3).
Supreme Court in 2883/2546.
Plaintiff is a commercial bank. Shall have the right to claim interest under the Bank pursuant to Section 14 of the Banking Act 2505 and the interest of the plaintiff does not fall within the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code. The plaintiff shall have the power to adjust interest rates. But within the framework of the Bank of Thailand When adjusting the interest rate of the plaintiff in violation of the Bank. Thailand, it is against the law. Agreement is not unfair or contrary to public order. As a result, the agreement is void.
The duration of the deductive account of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 858 with the current contract will expire when It's a different story. For the first case that will determine the duration of the current contract or not. If you do not specify the duration of a deductive account of the law shall be six months. The deductive account. In the event that the account does not have the time or the duration of the contract, it may be. A period of time such as deductive deductive account every month.
The current contract between the plaintiff and a defendant, but the parties may terminate the contract and that the deductive account at any time. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 859 a contract at the time when the plaintiff has terminated the contract of the defendant, one in which the defendant first received notice of termination on June 12, 2541 and the expiration of the period of notice in a day. July 12, 2541 at the current contract expired on that date. Not be completed within 6 months of the period that the deductive account under section 858.
The amount that the plaintiff give the defendant an overdraft loan is a different matter with the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest from the defendant or not, and will be compounded, however. The overdraft loan contract terms regarding interest rates and allow The interest is compounded on the unpaid amount on a monthly basis. And compounded interest on the amount of money that if this became a defendant must pay interest at the rate set forth so as long as the account still exists. The plaintiff shall be entitled to charge interest and bring the money, even when folded together, to exceed. The amount of the overdraft or loan agreement.
Supreme Court to 39/2546.
Overdraft contract expired. Plaintiffs also allow a defendant to withdraw from the account and the current account to another account. The plaintiff did not terminate the contract, holding that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to extend a current contract to an indefinite time. But when the defendant is a withdrawal from the account on December 20, 2534 and thereafter, the current list. I have, however, is interest on the defendant. Army as an unpaid monthly payments. The book is broken down on December 30, 2534 shows the intent of the plaintiff and a defendant who did not wish to have spread through inter anymore. Overdraft loan agreement, it shall be dissolved on December 30, 2534, the day after Jackson's last book. Can be dissolved on September 30, 2536, the date of the plaintiff, after deposit of the defendant, the second payment under the loan overdraft owed to the defendant at first, so the period from December 31, 2534 the plaintiff shall have no rights. interest of the defendant at first thought.
Even with the consent of the deposit as security for debts which the two defendants made to plaintiff, the plaintiff will be able to take the defendant's deposit account to offset the two deductive drown in debt and bank overdrafts at any time. But the plaintiff's rights and powers to carry out the overdraft loan agreement. Force. When the overdraft loan ends on December 30, 2534, and the defendant does not pay to the plaintiff. Like the plaintiff to exercise the rights of the defendant to deposit a second, less transfer payments to the plaintiff immediately. After that, if the defendant owed a debt to the amount. The plaintiff is entitled to charge interest on that amount until full payment is not compounded when the contract is terminated the plaintiff to recover overdraft interest rate is the highest. Shall be collected by the Bank and the Bank of Thailand, which plaintiff. Does not change anymore. The call rate as defined in the overdraft rate is 16.5 percent per year, which is expected to contract by the original only.
Supreme Court in 7040/2542.
Agreement to renew the agreement that the overdraft is not a contract account. When current ceases. When it appears that after the expiry of the term of the renewal of such a book. Wed, creditors and the company continues to circulate through the following accounts for an indefinite period of time when the company May money in bills and deposit money via a bank account of the current account. Finally, on November 23, 2531 the current account does not have to. But I think the interest only. And creditors that the deductive account Por on January 31, 2533, which held that the deductive account of a walk after that. The following widespread account. Shows that both the contract and shall account to the end. Top down on January 31, 2533, the day that the deductive account of the Section 856 and 859 claims of creditors who have an age limit of 10 years, according to Section 193 /. 30 was started from the date of February 1, 2533, creditors filed an application for payment from the debtor's assets on September 29, 2538 the claims within the last 10 years does not terminate the debt.
Supreme Court in 5035/2528.
Current deposit agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that Payments shall be payable by April. And together with the province. The plaintiff is the company's seal. Check both the parties. And signature. As the counterfeit check and then hand it is invalidated. It's only May. Shall be the sole defendant to pay the check. Such checks would not make it out to be wrong. Current account deposits, such that f. Signed the check is not a plaintiff in the base. The need to cut to make up a fake sign up as a defense when they do not have to. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1006 of the defendant to pay the check. The plaintiff, who paid fake signature. Serve as proof that the defendant did not prove that. The plaintiff has made a false or fraudulent actions have been. The defendant is not entitled to the amount of the check was paid to current accounts receivable to the defendant and the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the defendant has the right to withdraw the item is defective.
The plaintiff sued the defendant's breach of contract, deposit and current accounts. Defendant that the defendant pay the money back to the plaintiff in the payer's signature. Forged signatures. Then put that amount into a savings account or current account. The plaintiff is the debtor. If no such law otherwise. Age was a period of ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164 in December 2518 and informed the plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Last month, in May 2525 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Section 857 of the bills as listed in the current account. You shall be presumed that the conditions would have to pay if the tickets are not paid soon. The revocation list is a waste of time.
Section 858 If the parties do not specify that the deductive account by the time I remember. He is scheduled to take six months.
Section 859 any party to terminate the account and deductive account any time to waste if nothing appears to be inconsistent with these Terms.
Section 860 funds that have similar, if not yet paid. You interest from the date the account is broken down as follows.
Supreme Court in 2312/2550.
The defendant made the request to open a current account alone. Without an overdraft or loan agreement secured by any. Given the plaintiff. The application for an overdraft after only 3 days to allow the defendant to the plaintiff bank check withdrawal from your bank account than the plaintiff had not shown that he had known the defendant as well as special guests. Show that the defendant is bound to help. Managers, Samrong Branch plaintiff bank. People signed up to the defendant bank account. Ehืasom with the defendant's defense that the defendant entered into an agreement to allow home construction. After opening the check payable to the defendant for a sum not exceeding the amount of wages received. Construction house for Christmas. The defendant was stopped for a check withdrawal. The beach was incredible. I take into account the defendant's obligations to pay to listen to the fact that home construction. The defendant is to allow the current account. Managers, Samrong bank branch to pay the plaintiff to hire a home contractor payments. Debt to the defendant by bringing money into the account. And the defendant to withdraw a check paid by the construction contractor. Defendants do not intend to do the overdraft from the plaintiff, so if the beach. Do not take into account the defendant to repay the help. Default the defendant shall be Check the plaintiff is under no obligation to pay cash. Money to help the defendant. But somehow, but that helps. I paid the check to the defendant that the defendant is not in good faith. The fee for the channel. The construction account to pay for debt service. Defendants do not intend to overdraft from the plaintiff to help. A plaintiff bank branch managers, Samrong. The defendant would not be able to take out cash as it appears in this case. If the account does not exist. I refuse to pay the bank the check is not the claim or defense. Suspension of the construction contract to the beach. Responder or litigate to pay contractors from the slot. As soon as the evidence is still required to carry the channel. Regarded as a position as a bank manager. Samrong Branch plaintiff by defendant as a principal is not liable for the actions of their agents. The defendant received the money from the bank plaintiff, by mistake, that is the period in which the defendant is entitled to the defendant is not intended to be a legal relationship to legal overdraft with the plaintiff, the plaintiff has sued the money from the defendant as a debtor. overdraft is not.
Supreme Court to 667/2549.
The loan agreement includes an agreement to increase overdraft loan, overdraft which The current contract must be on time. The current contract is independent of a particular contract. The agreement will remain in the next book will have widespread and continuous. Within a reasonable time. The fact that Saturday.'ve Put money into the account for the deductive part of the current account of the final on March 14, 2526, then the current account is again from the date of Saturday. Died a long time, almost 12 years show that pharmacist. with the intent to terminate the contract with plaintiff by default. The plaintiff is a financial institution has the duty to inspect the accounts of customers at that time. The movement, however. When the pharmacist. This is a customer of the plaintiff is no account activity. The plaintiff would have to claim or to terminate the contract in a reasonable time. Exercise is not to take excessive interest in a long time like this. Held that the exercise of the plaintiff did not act in good faith. The contract is considered dissolved from within. With the intent to terminate the contract with plaintiff by default, is dated March 14, 2526, the day Saturday. Current account one last time. The plaintiff's claim for recovery under the overdraft has occurred since then. Claims under the contract is scheduled for the 10-year-old plaintiff, the case was filed on February 5, 2539 expiration of the 10-year lease liability so as to terminate the account. However, it appears that yet. To the land and buildings are mortgaged as collateral for a loan in the amount of 5.5 million baht plus interest at a rate of 15 percent per year, with the agreement that if the plaintiff, the mortgage money, not enough pay. allow the take of debt. Property until the debt under the account will expire at. It must be a Section 193/27 and Section 745, the plaintiff is the mortgagee to enforce payment of the mortgage assets, even when the debt. The mortgage insurance is to expire the next time. Be forced to pay interest on the unpaid after more than five years old. And remain in force only within the property. Mortgaged only. Forces of other assets can not. Although the mortgage contract is scheduled to be removed from the property until the end. If the mortgage is not enough money to pay their debts.
(Meeting No. 3 / 2548).
Supreme Court in 8117/2548.
Under the overdraft loan, the interest every day. And deadlines on a monthly basis at the closing end of the plaintiff every month and also stated that the plaintiff and the defendant is one of the traditions of the bank, the interest of the plaintiff every day and be sent on a monthly basis at the closing end of the month. It is the tradition of the Bank under an agreement between the parties. Which defines the legal period under Section 193 / 1, despite the end of the month is a holiday. Plaintiff's account at the end of the month is broken down by holding the open day the next day closing.
Supreme Court in 1584/2548.
Demand deposit account and current account overdraft only loan products. Thanawat believe the credit card. Clearly stated that Are intended to pay for goods and services. Arising from the use of credit cards. As well as to withdraw cash from accounts through automated teller machines. These transactions are in connection with the use of credit cards, totally. To open a current account is in turn used to make a withdrawal, but the current account is normally used to allow the defendants to pay debts arising from the use Credit card, but only one in particular. Not the case that the plaintiff had agreed to cut your debt, but its occurrence. Between plaintiff and defendant be eliminated. And would pay the remaining portion of the main characteristics of a spread account agreement under Section 856 loan that is right for overdraft loan or debt under current account, not the plaintiff. payments to the creditors of the defendant before. Allow the plaintiff or the defendant's credit card to withdraw cash from bank deposits. And then automatically charged to the defendant after the plaintiff constitutes a. Operators to get to work. The money was out due to the nature of the business credit card is valid for two years under Section 193/34 (7).
Supreme Court to 708/2548.
Please refer to the plaintiff, which by virtue of the Bank of Thailand On the banks act in the interest and discount, dated October 20, 2536, the enforcement of the contract between plaintiff and defendant overdraft. The plaintiffs charge the customer interest and discount on cash limit. Or breach the terms of payment at a rate not exceeding 19 per year, and calls from customers within the limits and terms of payment. The rates charged to retail customers excellent (MRR) is the rate of 13.75 per year plus 2 percent per year as a percentage of 15.75 per year for the plaintiff, the interest is triggered by the defendant that a contract issue. account for more than 19 percent per year, which is the interest rate charged to the cash limit or wrong. Conditions of payment. Interest rates than the general run of customers from the date of this Agreement. It is beyond the declared interest of the plaintiff. Not in accordance with the Bank of Thailand. And beyond the law is contrary to Section 14 of the Banking Act, which is prohibited by the Act do not exceed the rate of interest under Section 3 (a) the interest shall be void. I think the plaintiff interest on debt payments at a rate of 7.5 percent per year from the date of default under Section 224 paragraph one and only case of legal issues relating to public order. Despite being informed that a defendant does not dispute the accuracy of the current account and interest charged. Some time after the contract, including interest rates would have to sue the rate of 19 per year, it can not be forced upon request.
The overdraft is an agreement of the parties to a contract, a spread between the loan account would have to follow the methods of the current contract. What to do when they are broken down and called on account of payment balance current account, so if the parties continue to live on. It is not considered to have defaulted.
Supreme Court in 2877/2547.
The defendant is a limited partnership is an entity type. Registering the Partnership on July 13, 2536 registration of the liquidation on April 20, 2537, making an end-state corporate defendants. No authority to proceed from the date of completion of liquidation. The current account between the plaintiff and the defendant first must be ended and the deductive account the fact that a debt overdraft of approximately 2,132,418 baht, even later, will be withdrawn from the account and the funds deposited in the account. But when the defendant is a corporation and shall have no power to withdraw the condition. The debt is out of the account.One for the plaintiff. Which appeared in the cards, checking that the date March 11, 2539, the bank deposits as many times as 3,928,691.69 baht of debt of the defendant an amount of approximately 2,132,418 baht, the interest rate of 19.75 per year, not compounded by the plaintiff. Request from the date of April 20, 2537 until March 11, 2539 amounting to approximately USD 794,340.52 USD 2,926,758.52 is the total amount is less than the amount to which the funds in your account. It can not be said that a defendant owed the plaintiff. The second defendant as the guarantor and the land as security for a debt of the defendants are not liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 7080/2546.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to force the defendant to the plaintiff for payment under current account. The defendant agrees to withdraw money from your current account by check. Serve as proof that the plaintiff. Outstanding in the current account, which is the plaintiff sued the defendant. Liability of the defendant's shop, members of the plaintiff and the defendant used the credit card sales slip in May to buy from the defendant by the plaintiff's credit card to charge the plaintiff. Plaintiff to pay the current account of the defendant and the defendant deposited checks. Withdraw it. The plaintiff charged the defendant took the money from the Sun is not the amount deducted from the current account of the defendant. Will serve as proof that the current debt by the plaintiff and the defendant to account. Circulate why the defendant owes the plaintiff. The plaintiff also asks that the plaintiff sued the defendants under the current account. The defendant did not force any other contract, the court ruled that the defendant is liable to pay a debt to the plaintiff. It is diagnosed in the indictment.
Supreme Court in 5296/2546.
The current agreement that would open. Current opening for an account. If there is not enough money in the account of the defendant to pay the check. Typically, the plaintiff will refuse to pay altogether. However, if the plaintiff refused to pay the waiver. Defendants agree to be bound to pay the excess return as the plaintiff had requested. Overdraft with the plaintiff. The interest paid in excess of the account agreement that The plaintiff is entitled to charge compound interest monthly at the maximum rate of the Bank of the country. Thailand set to collect it. While making the request to open a current account with the Bank of Thailand. Commercial banks and other financial institutions, the interest rate announced by the Bank of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has announced the interest rates charged to the accounts of various types, and announce several changes in interest rates. In the case of the defendant. Based on current account of the defendant. The rate of interest. And the plaintiff to see that. The plaintiff charged the defendant at the same rate of interest on excess cash customers. Account, exceeds the amount and type of customer with no overdraft facility. The plaintiff is in the same group of customers who breach conditions. The interest of the plaintiff by the defendant in such an agreement to open. Current account Bank of Thailand And the plaintiff has done this.
Supreme Court to 686/2546.
Attorney general Not intended to represent any particular act. The prosecution did not identify the individual who is the debtor or the person being sued if any person shall have the power to one person or several people acting in more than one plaintiff is a power of attorney to sue the debtor for The plaintiff has no case. Limited number of cases and individuals. The plaintiff sued the defendant attorney to do it. Unauthorized use of plaintiff's attorney to sue the original defendant in this case.
The plaintiff sued the lecture. The defendant has entered into loan overdraft with the plaintiff in the amount of 1.5 million baht would be the highest interest rate announced by Bank of Thailand Property as security for loans and mortgages. Then there are checks to withdraw money from an account until now. After the defendant to withdraw money from the account number but a small amount of money into a deductive account. The plaintiff told the defendant to pay the debt and the mortgage. The plaintiff's debt was only on April 12, 2539, the date of termination of account. The defendant owed the plaintiff 1,877,571.48 Baht to calculate the interest on the lawsuit. This is part of the lawsuit. Be filed by the plaintiff to show clearly the condition of charge. Request, forcing the residents to settle claims that the defendant understood the charges. The process of calculating interest on the debt each month and each month a summary of the details can attest that the plaintiff class in consideration. The plaintiff sued, so do not be vague
In the first case, the plaintiff sued defendant to recover the debt in the mortgage and overdraft. Court judgments that have outstanding loans for overdraft loans are calculated. We need to raise the request of the plaintiff in this section. Without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring an action in this case within the time limit. The plaintiff sued the defendant, and later a lawsuit to recover the debt in overdraft of the same court ruled that the plaintiff did not sue, the court shall calculate interest by the plaintiff to sue and serve as proof of the same issues. The proceedings are over. The two cases also hold that the Court did not decide the issue of the lawsuit, the plaintiff sued the defendant is this case. The demolition was not a case in point is again ruled by reason. Same The plaintiff's case did not calculate the interest according to the Court of First Instance stated in the court before which proceedings are not about the case or issue a decision. I decided against it. Plaintiff has not filed or proceedings against a repeat.
Supreme Court to 388/2546.
Cases filed in court, the Code of Civil Procedure Section 131 (2) the court decision on the issue of the case by a written decision or order, and Section 148 (3) is an exception in a lawsuit over the case when the verdict or order. Then, the indictment Waste without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring a new indictment was filed. This case the plaintiff sued the defendant for payment under the loan agreement and the overdraft. Forced to mortgage the land secured. The defendant's contention that in many respects. Court would like to make a decision or order ruling on the issue. The case under Section 131 (2) The Court of Justice ruling on the issue of dismissing the lawsuit, the plaintiff was not cut. The plaintiff to prosecute the new thematic issues of interest to the plaintiff. Have the right to charge any interest. What are the issues that the payments under the loan or overdraft is not The Court agreed that the plaintiff does not refer to the current date. The Court considers that the overdraft will not know which end of the day. The defendant has paid the debt I owe one. The judge dismissed the plaintiff without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against the new. Plaintiff's interest is to allow the plaintiff to be entitled to have. It would be fair for both parties to find the defendant not disadvantaged in any way with the verdict of the Court of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 148 (3).
Supreme Court in 2883/2546.
Plaintiff is a commercial bank. Shall have the right to claim interest under the Bank pursuant to Section 14 of the Banking Act 2505 and the interest of the plaintiff does not fall within the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code. The plaintiff shall have the power to adjust interest rates. But within the framework of the Bank of Thailand When adjusting the interest rate of the plaintiff in violation of the Bank. Thailand, it is against the law. Agreement is not unfair or contrary to public order. As a result, the agreement is void.
The duration of the deductive account of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 858 with the current contract will expire when It's a different story. For the first case that will determine the duration of the current contract or not. If you do not specify the duration of a deductive account of the law shall be six months. The deductive account. In the event that the account does not have the time or the duration of the contract, it may be. A period of time such as deductive deductive account every month.
The current contract between the plaintiff and a defendant, but the parties may terminate the contract and that the deductive account at any time. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 859 a contract at the time when the plaintiff has terminated the contract of the defendant, one in which the defendant first received notice of termination on June 12, 2541 and the expiration of the period of notice in a day. July 12, 2541 at the current contract expired on that date. Not be completed within 6 months of the period that the deductive account under section 858.
The amount that the plaintiff give the defendant an overdraft loan is a different matter with the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest from the defendant or not, and will be compounded, however. The overdraft loan contract terms regarding interest rates and allow The interest is compounded on the unpaid amount on a monthly basis. And compounded interest on the amount of money that if this became a defendant must pay interest at the rate set forth so as long as the account still exists. The plaintiff shall be entitled to charge interest and bring the money, even when folded together, to exceed. The amount of the overdraft or loan agreement.
Supreme Court to 39/2546.
Overdraft contract expired. Plaintiffs also allow a defendant to withdraw from the account and the current account to another account. The plaintiff did not terminate the contract, holding that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to extend a current contract to an indefinite time. But when the defendant is a withdrawal from the account on December 20, 2534 and thereafter, the current list. I have, however, is interest on the defendant. Army as an unpaid monthly payments. The book is broken down on December 30, 2534 shows the intent of the plaintiff and a defendant who did not wish to have spread through inter anymore. Overdraft loan agreement, it shall be dissolved on December 30, 2534, the day after Jackson's last book. Can be dissolved on September 30, 2536, the date of the plaintiff, after deposit of the defendant, the second payment under the loan overdraft owed to the defendant at first, so the period from December 31, 2534 the plaintiff shall have no rights. interest of the defendant at first thought.
Even with the consent of the deposit as security for debts which the two defendants made to plaintiff, the plaintiff will be able to take the defendant's deposit account to offset the two deductive drown in debt and bank overdrafts at any time. But the plaintiff's rights and powers to carry out the overdraft loan agreement. Force. When the overdraft loan ends on December 30, 2534, and the defendant does not pay to the plaintiff. Like the plaintiff to exercise the rights of the defendant to deposit a second, less transfer payments to the plaintiff immediately. After that, if the defendant owed a debt to the amount. The plaintiff is entitled to charge interest on that amount until full payment is not compounded when the contract is terminated the plaintiff to recover overdraft interest rate is the highest. Shall be collected by the Bank and the Bank of Thailand, which plaintiff. Does not change anymore. The call rate as defined in the overdraft rate is 16.5 percent per year, which is expected to contract by the original only.
Supreme Court in 7040/2542.
Agreement to renew the agreement that the overdraft is not a contract account. When current ceases. When it appears that after the expiry of the term of the renewal of such a book. Wed, creditors and the company continues to circulate through the following accounts for an indefinite period of time when the company May money in bills and deposit money via a bank account of the current account. Finally, on November 23, 2531 the current account does not have to. But I think the interest only. And creditors that the deductive account Por on January 31, 2533, which held that the deductive account of a walk after that. The following widespread account. Shows that both the contract and shall account to the end. Top down on January 31, 2533, the day that the deductive account of the Section 856 and 859 claims of creditors who have an age limit of 10 years, according to Section 193 /. 30 was started from the date of February 1, 2533, creditors filed an application for payment from the debtor's assets on September 29, 2538 the claims within the last 10 years does not terminate the debt.
Supreme Court in 5035/2528.
Current deposit agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that Payments shall be payable by April. And together with the province. The plaintiff is the company's seal. Check both the parties. And signature. As the counterfeit check and then hand it is invalidated. It's only May. Shall be the sole defendant to pay the check. Such checks would not make it out to be wrong. Current account deposits, such that f. Signed the check is not a plaintiff in the base. The need to cut to make up a fake sign up as a defense when they do not have to. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1006 of the defendant to pay the check. The plaintiff, who paid fake signature. Serve as proof that the defendant did not prove that. The plaintiff has made a false or fraudulent actions have been. The defendant is not entitled to the amount of the check was paid to current accounts receivable to the defendant and the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the defendant has the right to withdraw the item is defective.
The plaintiff sued the defendant's breach of contract, deposit and current accounts. Defendant that the defendant pay the money back to the plaintiff in the payer's signature. Forged signatures. Then put that amount into a savings account or current account. The plaintiff is the debtor. If no such law otherwise. Age was a period of ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164 in December 2518 and informed the plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Last month, in May 2525 did not terminate the plaintiff's case.
