Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: certificates indian contract act Page 1 of about 16,591 results (0.090 seconds)

Jun 30 1921 (PC)

Fazal D. Allana Vs. Mangaldas M. Pakvasa

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR1144; 66Ind.Cas.726

..... , counsel for the plaintiff as well as for the defendant admitted that chapter vii of the indian contract act applied to shave certificates. under 8 108 of the indian contract act no seller can give to the buyer of goods a better title than he himself has except in cases falling within the exceptions to that section ..... anything attached to the earth. it is enacted by section 28 of the indian companies act that shares in a company shall be moveable property. share certificates are moveable property and are therefore goods within the meaning of section 108 of (he indian contract act. see ill. (a) to section 88 of the indian contract act and hazarimull shohanlal v. hatish chandra ghose i.l.r (1918) cal. 331 ..... amount to an offence committed by the buyer or those whom he represents: see section 108, exception 3, indian contract act.32. i hold, therefore, that even if ismail was induced to part with the share certificates on the fraudulent representations of anveri which amounted to cheating, the plaintiff's title both legal and equitable in the shares passed to the brokers and the ..... , p. c, that the terms of the indian evidence act did not enact as law in india anything different from the law of england on the subject of estoppel.61. i have held that the plaintiff delivered the transfer forms and share certificates to the broker.62. in my opinion even if there was no contract between the plaintiff and the brokers and even .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1967 (HC)

Bai Sarda Vs. Patel Keshavlal Joitaram

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1969Guj150; (1968)GLR1040

..... true that the initial amount was loaned by the husband of the plaintiff and that was the consideration for executing the pro-note ex. 26 by the opponent under the indian contract act the consideration may flow from a third party. the execution of pro-note ex. 26 created a novatio between the plaintiff and the defendant and the original ..... failing to do so ordered the suit to be dismissed. this order is obviously erroneous and contrary to the express provisions of section 214 of the indian succession act which only requires the production of succession certificate at any time before the decree is passed.6. the result is that in view of the fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit in ..... the amount due on the basis of the specific contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. the provisions of section 214 of the indian succession act cannot apply to such a case.5. next it should also be noted that section 214 of the succession act prohibits the court from passing a decree unless a succession certificate is produced in the case. in this case ..... -note or that he received any consideration. he also contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff could not institute the suit without obtaining a succession certificate as required by section 214 of the indian succession act. the learned trial judge tried the issue as to whether the plaintiff could file the suit without obtaining a succession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1968 (SC)

Bulchand Chandiram of Bombay Vs. Bank of India Ltd., Fort, Bombay

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1968SC1475; [1968]3SCR868

..... on behalf of the appellant that the high court fell into an error in construing the provisions of s. 22 in the context of s. 43 of the indian contract act which states that 'when two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any one ..... necessary, in our opinion, to decide this point in the present case. we shall assume in favour of the appellant that s. 43 of the indian contract act has no application. even upon that assumption the plea of the appellant for apportionment of the debt must be rejected because the high court has found, upon ..... on june 6, 1950 on a temporary permit. during his absence the pakistan government declared him to be an evacuee. in december, 1950 he was granted a domicile certificate and since then he has been residing in bombay. on may 4, 1945 the appellant had opened an account with the bank of india (hyderabad sind branch) ..... bears to the total value of the properties; .................................................................... (g) where the relationship between the joint debtors is that of principal and surety, nothing contained in this act shall prevent the institution of a suit for the recovery of the debt against the surety but no decree shall be passed in such suit for an amount in ..... ramaswami, j.1. this appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the bombay high court dated november 16, 1962 in cross appeals nos. 756 and 791 of 1957. 2. the appellant, bulchand .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2004 (HC)

Mohon Jatia and ors. Vs. Indian Bank and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR2004Cal326,II(2005)BC212,(2004)3CALLT527(HC),2005(2)CTLJ83(Cal)

..... learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that in chapter viii of the indian contract act, 1872, the principle laid down that the surety's interest will be protected and when the suit is made for ultimate balance, the certificate is to be issued by the tribunal to the extent after passing the decree ..... . as such, the requirement of the law cannot be objected to. section 133 of the indian contract act, 1872 says that any variance, made without the surety ..... 's consent, in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, discharges the surety as to transactions subsequent to the ..... application of the law only on the ground of delay caused material irregularity. unless the relevant question of discharge of surety and question of certification to that extent is adjudicated particularly when the cause is existing, rejection of the point in issue will lead to unjust enrichment to ..... police station on 9th january, 1992. in spite of repeated requests neither the receiver nor the bank disclosed the present position. by virtue of the act the suit was transferred to the tribunal in 1995 and renumbered. the present application is made in january, 2000. mr. m. rajasekhar, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1976 (SC)

Govindbhai Gordhanbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Gulam Abbas Mulla Allibhai a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1977SC1019; (1977)3SCC179; [1977]2SCR511

..... the said agreement was subsisting on june 25, 1959 when the appellants obtained the requisite permission and the certificate from the additional collector, thana, and that section 56 of the indian contract act was not attracted in the present case as the contract had not become impossible of performance.8. mr. sachin chaudhary, counsel for the respondents, has, on the other hand, contended that the ..... question depends on the construction of the expression 'impossible of performance' occurring in section 56 of the indian contract act which lays down:56. an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void- a contract to do an act which after the contract is made, becomes ..... of performance and as such void under section 56 of the indian contract act and (2) whether in view of the aforesaid order of refusal by the prant officer, thana dated december 8, 1958, the additional collector, thana, was not competent to grant the sanction and the certificate under section 63 of the act and rule 36 of the rules. the answer to the first ..... . mugheeram 'bangur & co. 1954 scr 310 'is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done and hence comes within the purview of section 56 of the indian contract act.' 2. the facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a short compass and may be briefly stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1945 (PC)

Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. M.H. Dinshaw and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1946Bom469; (1946)48BOMLR313

..... omission or negligence that he had given up a valuable right under section 63 of the indian contract act. the position is the same with regard to not taking objection to the form of the certificate till the suit was filed because it may be that the legal advisers of the plaintiffs ..... is tantamount to the acceptance by the buyer of the certificate of insurance in place of the proper policy of insurance to which he was entitled under the contract. (now although an agreement may not be necessary under section 63 of the indian contract act, it is clear that a promisee can only dispense with ..... in that case. but i do not think it follows from that judgment that every dispensation made by the promisee under section 63 of the indian contract act necessarily requires an agreement between the promisor and the promisee. the very illustrations to the section, which though they cannot control the language of ..... implication of english doctrines.17. in my opinion in order to constitute a waiver or a dispensation of a promise under section 63 of the indian contract act, neither consideration nor an agreement is necessary. mr. m. v. desai drew my attention to a judgment i have recently delivered sitting with ..... of the privy council deserve the highest respect. i must observe again, with very great respect, that their lordships completely overlooked section 63 of the indian contract act and also their earlier decision reported in chimna mal-ram nath v. mool chand-ram bhagat (1928) l.r. 55 indap 154. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1925 (PC)

Jamshedji Naoroji Gamadia Vs. Maganlal Bankeylal and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR514; 92Ind.Cas.9

..... .coyajee, j.25. i agree in holding that the pledge of the share certificates created by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs is valid: section 178, indian contract act. the term 'goods' used in that section is very wide (s. 76 of the said act), sufficiently wide to include share certificates (fazal v. mangaldas i. l. r. (1921) 46 bom. 489section c. 23 bom ..... issue he decided that the first defendant obtained the shares by a material misrepresentation of fact, bat that as the interests of a bonafide pledgee under section 178 of the indian contract act had intervened, the second defendant could not be placed in the status quo ante. consequently he held that the pledge was valid and binding on the second defendant who was ..... the purpose of raising money for that business. the question whether the pledge of the shares before the rescission of the contract would be invalid is considered by messrs. pollock and mulla in their notes to section 178 of the indian contract act, at p. 639. the authors think that the use of the term ' fraud ' in juxtaposition to offence would seem to indicate ..... that it is confined to the substantive wrong of deceit. if possession of goods obtained under a contract voidable on the ground of fraud is possession obtained by fraud .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1925 (PC)

Abdul Vahed Abdul Karim Vs. Hasanali Alibhai Ghasia

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR562

..... one crescent mill share, nor is defendant no, 3 protected by section 108 of the indian contract act, so p. that a decree should be passed against him for the return of the share certificates with properly executed transfers and in default for payment of their value.20. the appellant will ..... be entitled to his costs in proportion throughout.coyajee, j.21. i am of the same opinion. the main question arising in this case is whether the respondent (defendant no. 3) is entitled to protection under the first exception to section 108 of the indian contract act ..... for these reasons, i agree with my lord the chief justice that defendant no. 3 is not protected by section 108 (exception 1), indian contract act, and that, in the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is not estopped from asserting a right to the tata hydro share and the crescent ..... behalf of his client, he would have been protected by the provisions of section 108 of the indian contract act which is the section far more applicable to the case than section 115 of the indian evidence act.18. but he bought them from defendant no. 1 who, to his know-lodge, was ..... cannot rely on the defence that there is an estoppel against the real owner.13. how far the act of the registered owner of shares, who hands over the share certificates with transfer forma signed by him in blank to another person, estops him from asserting his title against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1926 (PC)

M.P. Bharucha Vs. Wadilal Sarabhai and Co. and Maganlal C. Ghia

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR777

..... as regards a certain rule c, with which their lordships will afterwards deal. on the merits of the case they held that, under the indian contract act, the property of the shares as sold passed on the delivery of the certificates and blank transfers to gora; that, after that, plaintiff no. 1 had no claim against gora except upon the cheque; that consequently he ..... had no claim against defendants nos. 2 and 3, and could not have a judgment against defendant no. 3 for delivery of the certificates and transfers. they held further that section 121 of the indian contract act, which is in these terms-when goods sold have been delivered to the buyer, the seller is not entitled to rescind the ..... bargain by supplying the buyer with certificates and blank transfers, signed by the registered holders of the shares described. bharucha sold what he had got. he could sell no more. he sold what in england would have been choses in action, and he delivered choses in action. but in india by the terms of the indian contract act, these choses in action are goods ..... its unsoundness. in the first place, so far as lien is concerned, the law as to lien is statutory and is contained in the 95th and following sections of the indian contract act. section 95 applies to this case; unless there is possession there is no lion. but, farther, there seems to their lordships a good deal of confusion arising from the prominence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1926 (PC)

Maneckji Pestonji Bharucha and Another Vs. Wadilal Sarabhai and Compan ...

Court : Privy Council

..... c, with which their lordships will afterwards deal. on the merits of the case they held that, under the indian contract act, the property of the shares as sold passed on the delivery of the certificates and blank transfers to gora; that, after that, plaintiff no. 1 had no claim against gora except upon the ..... place, so far as lien is concerned, the law as to lien is statutory and is contained in the 95 th and following sections of the indian contract act. section 95 applies to this case; unless there is possession there is no lien. but, further, there seems to their lordships a good deal of ..... against defendants nos. 2 and 3, and could not have a judgment against defendant no. 3 for delivery of the certificates and transfers. they held further that section 121 of the contract act, which is in these terms 121. when goods sold have been delivered to the buyer, the seller is not entitled ..... with certificates and blank transfers, signed by the registered holders of the shares described. bharucha sold what he had got. he could sell no more. he sold what in england would have been choses in action, and he delivered choses in action. but in india, by the terms of the contract act, these ..... but conditional, with the result that the property did not really pass till the cheque was honoured. their lordships consider this argument quite unsound. the contract act settles that property is to pass on delivery. delivery is a fact, and the statutory result must follow. further, the rule cannot be read as .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //