Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: rajasthan jodhpur Page 1 of about 266 results (0.019 seconds)

Mar 31 2015 (HC)

State and Anr Vs. Dr. Kantesh Khetani and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

..... working on honorary basis, was accepted under the influence of the respondents, and was hit by section 16(1) of the indian contract act, 1872, and for which, they relied on central inland water transport corporation vs. brojo nath ganguly and anr., (1986) 3 scc156 10. after making ..... judiciary system. in brojo nath ganguly's case(supra), the supreme court held, considering the question in the light of section 23 of the contract act, which provides that a contract which is opposed to public policy, would be void, that the public policy is not capable of a precise definition; it however connotes matters ..... the policy, is a test, to be applied in the given case, in achieving the public good for public purpose. it was entirely unreasonable to enforce the contract against the students, who were doing same type of work in {14} db civil special appeal- 81/2005 hospitals as doctors, though with differing skills and ..... livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party, or go without them, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form, or to accept a set of rules is unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. there ..... all bargains, but that the principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. it will apply to a situation, in which the weaker party is in a position where he can obtain goods or services or means of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2015 (HC)

Ram Singh and Ors Vs. Bhikam Chand and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

sbc first appeal no.469/2009 ram singh & ors. vs. bhikam chand & ors. judgment dt:28. 1/2015 1/35 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment ram singh & ors. vs. bhikam chand & ors. s.b.civil first appeal no.469/2009 date of judgment :28. h january, 2015 present hon'ble dr. justice vineet kothari mr.jitendra chopra, for the appellant-defendants mr. suresh shrimali, ]. mr.sundeep bhandawat,]. for the respondent-plaintiffs. mr.ashok patel, ]. by the court: reportable1 the defendants ram singh s/o ghasi ram & ors have filed the present first appeal under section 96 cpc against bhikam chand s/o ram jeevan & anr. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12/8/2009 passed learned addl. district judge (fast track) no.3, jodhpur in a suit for specific performance being civil suit no.603/2004 (351/2004) bhikam chand & arun kumar vs. ram singh s/o ghasi ram & ors.2. the said suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs bhikam chand & ors. on 2/11/2004 in respect of agriculture land belonging to ghasi ram, father of the present appellant-defendant ram singh, ad-measuring 28 bighas 19 biswas situated of khasra no.821, 822, 823, 824, 827 & 827/1 in village baga, tehsil & district sbc first appeal no.469/2009 ram singh & ors. vs. bhikam chand & ors. judgment dt:28. 1/2015 2/35 jodhpur, which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs under the agreement to sell dated 28/10/1989 at the rate of rs.51,000/- per bigha and this agreement dated 28/10/1989 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2013 (HC)

Vaga Ram and ors Vs. Gautam Rishi Trust Meena Samaj and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. explanation.- an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the indian contract act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. 3b. no agreement or compromise to be ..... togaram & bhalaram. mr. s.r. choudhary for devasthan department. ---- these appeals under section 40(3) of the rajasthan public trust act, 1959 ('the act') have been filed against order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the district judge, sirohi in civil misc. case nos. 49/2010, ..... ?=(? ??? ?) consequently, the proceedings in all the three misc. applications instituted in pursuance to the direction dated 19.11.2010 passed by the assistant commissioner under section 38 of the act were dismissed as having been compromised. thereafter, it appears that an application dated 28.02.2012 was filed in civil misc. case no. 4/2011 by counsel for the defendants ..... others to apply to the court for directions. the operative portion of the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the assistant commissioner in proceedings under section 38 of the act reads as under:- f. ??: ???? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? , ?? ? ?? 01 ??? ? ? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? 02 ? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ??? ? ? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? 38 (?) ?? 38 (?) ? ????? ???" ?$? ?? ? ? ?' ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? 40 (2) (?) ?? 40 (2) (?) ? ????? ? ??* ??? ? ? ? ???" $ *? ??? ? ??/$? ??/? ? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ???3 ? ?? ? ? ?? ?5 ? ??? ? ?? ? ??* ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ???" $ ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ??? ? 15 ???? ? ?*?? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2013 (HC)

Vagaram and ors Vs. Umaram and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. explanation.- an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the indian contract act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. 3b. no agreement or compromise to be ..... togaram & bhalaram. mr. s.r. choudhary for devasthan department. ---- these appeals under section 40(3) of the rajasthan public trust act, 1959 ('the act') have been filed against order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the district judge, sirohi in civil misc. case nos. 49/2010, ..... ?=(? ??? ?) consequently, the proceedings in all the three misc. applications instituted in pursuance to the direction dated 19.11.2010 passed by the assistant commissioner under section 38 of the act were dismissed as having been compromised. thereafter, it appears that an application dated 28.02.2012 was filed in civil misc. case no. 4/2011 by counsel for the defendants ..... others to apply to the court for directions. the operative portion of the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the assistant commissioner in proceedings under section 38 of the act reads as under:- f. ??: ???? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? , ?? ? ?? 01 ??? ? ? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? 02 ? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ??? ? ? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? 38 (?) ?? 38 (?) ? ????? ???" ?$? ?? ? ? ?' ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? 40 (2) (?) ?? 40 (2) (?) ? ????? ? ??* ??? ? ? ? ???" $ *? ??? ? ??/$? ??/? ? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ???3 ? ?? ? ? ?? ?5 ? ??? ? ?? ? ??* ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ???" $ ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ??? ? 15 ???? ? ?*?? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2013 (HC)

Vaga Ram and ors Vs. Sona Ram and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. explanation.- an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the indian contract act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. 3b. no agreement or compromise to be ..... togaram & bhalaram. mr. s.r. choudhary for devasthan department. ---- these appeals under section 40(3) of the rajasthan public trust act, 1959 ('the act') have been filed against order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the district judge, sirohi in civil misc. case nos. 49/2010, ..... ?=(? ??? ?) consequently, the proceedings in all the three misc. applications instituted in pursuance to the direction dated 19.11.2010 passed by the assistant commissioner under section 38 of the act were dismissed as having been compromised. thereafter, it appears that an application dated 28.02.2012 was filed in civil misc. case no. 4/2011 by counsel for the defendants ..... others to apply to the court for directions. the operative portion of the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the assistant commissioner in proceedings under section 38 of the act reads as under:- f. ??: ???? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? , ?? ? ?? 01 ??? ? ? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? 02 ? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ??? ? ? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? 38 (?) ?? 38 (?) ? ????? ???" ?$? ?? ? ? ?' ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? 40 (2) (?) ?? 40 (2) (?) ? ????? ? ??* ??? ? ? ? ???" $ *? ??? ? ??/$? ??/? ? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ???3 ? ?? ? ? ?? ?5 ? ??? ? ?? ? ??* ??? ? ? ? ??? ? ???" $ ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ??? ? 15 ???? ? ?*?? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2014 (HC)

The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Vs. M/S Momanchand Phool Chand

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... appellants were not entitled for award of any penalty. section 73 and 74 of the indian contract act, 1872 ('the act') reads thus:- 73. compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. - when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the ..... entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for. explanation. - a stipulation for ..... instrument, to pay the whole sum mentioned therein. explanation. - a person who enters into a contract with government does not necessarily thereby undertake any public duty, or promise to do an act in which the public are interested. . while the provision of section 73 deals with the compensation ..... for loss or damage caused by breach of the contract in a case where there is no stipulation in the contract; 6 section 74 deals with compensation for breach of the contract where penalty is stipulated in the contract ..... party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2014 (HC)

M/S Nakoda Granite and Marmo Pvt.Ltd Vs. Yogendra Singhvi

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... remain unaffected for the purpose of resolution of disputes arising with reference to the deed of transfer.15. but where the contract or instrument is voidable at the option of a party (as for example under section 19 of the indian contract act, 1872), the invalidity that attaches itself to the main agreement may also attach itself to the arbitration agreement, if the reasons ..... sufficient to further strengthen that the document concerned is non- operational. true it is, an arbitration clause in an agreement for contract is required to be treated as an independent agreement for arbitration in light of section 16 of the act of 1996, but that agreement can be operated in the eventualities referred in paras 12, 13 and 16 (as marked ..... ground, not only the agreement for sale, but any arbitration agreement therein will not be binding.16. an arbitration agreement does not require registration under the registration -9- act. even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract or instrument, it is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent of the main ..... contract or instrument. therefore having regard to the proviso to section 49 of registration act read with section 16(1)(a) of the act, an arbitration agreement in an unregistered but compulsorily registrable document can be acted upon and enforced for the purpose of dispute resolution by arbitration. . the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2014 (HC)

Madan Lal and ors Vs. Narendra Kumar and anr

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... reasons to be recorded, 5 thinks fit to grant such adjournment.].[explanation.- an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the indian contract act, 1872 (9 of 1872).shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.]. . from a bare reading of the above provision, it is ..... counsel, possessed of the requisite authorisation by vakalatnama, act on behalf of his client. not to recognize such capacity is not only to cause much inconvenience and loss to 7 the parties personally, but ..... undue delay, loss and inconvenience, especially in the case of non-resident persons. it has always been universally understood that a party can always act by his duly authorised representative. if a power-of-attorney holder can enter into an agreement or compromise on behalf of his principal, so can ..... traditionally recognised role of counsel in the common law system, and the evil sought to be remedied by parliament by the c.p.c.(amendment) act, 1976, namely, attainment of certainty and expeditious disposal of cases by reducing the terms of compromise to writing signed by the parties, and allowing ..... considering the above aspect held as under:- 37. we may, however, hasten to add that it will be prudent for counsel not to act on implied authority except when warranted by the exigency of circumstances demanding immediate adjustment of suit by agreement or compromise and the signature of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2014 (HC)

The Oriental Insu. Com. Ltd.,bhilwara Vs. Ramdhan and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... despite paucity of funds in the account the owner has exposed himself for appropriate action under section 138 of negotiable instruments act, 1872, but that itself cannot create a valid contract of insurance between the owner and the insurer for mere issuance of cover note as concluded by the learned tribunal. ..... the inherent power to recall its order. . in this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the conclusion of the learned tribunal that contract of the insurance existed between the firs.respondent and the petitioner-insurance company cannot be sustained. accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be reversed ..... petitioner, has argued that although the cheque was tendered by the owner of vehicle, but the same has not been encashed, and therefore, the contract of insurance has not been completed. thus, he submits that the order impugned is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. mr.mukul singhvi has ..... the firs.respondent, but subsequently the cheque tendered by the firs.respondent was dishonored due to paucity of funds in his account, and therefore, contract of insurance was not completed. it is also averred in the application that when the cheque tendered by the owner of the vehicle was dishonored ..... , the insurance company rescinded the contract of insurance on 7th december, 2007 and intimation to this effect was also divulged to the owner. it is also stated in 3 the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2013 (HC)

U.O.i Vs. M/S Maheshwari Builders

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... ordinary cours.of business, it does not preclude the party from raising dispute about finality of the bill. such dispute do arise out of the contract. accordingly, the dispute was referable to arbitrator in terms of the agreement but the respondents have failed to do so vide annex.5 dated 13 ..... observed thus : the dispute had arisen between the parties out of the said contract and clause 70 of the contract agreement provides that such dispute is referable to arbitrator. the notice under section 11 of the act of 1996 having been served on the respondents vide annex.4 dated 15/6/2006 ..... for the appellant/s. mr.dinesh mehta, for the respondent. ---- by the court: this appeal under section 37 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 ('the act') has been filed against the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the district judge, jaisalmer, whereby the application filed by the appellant for ..... noticed above, the plea regarding lack of arbitral dispute was raised by the appellant in reply to application under section 11(6) of the act filed by the contractor and the said plea was negated by this court while allowing the said application and appointing arbitrator. the relevant portion whereof ..... made a jurisdictional error or allowed a claim against the terms of the contract or committed a patent illegality. ultimately, finding that the award passed by the sole arbitrator cannot be interfered under section 34 of the act dismissed the application, as notice above. the only ground raised by learned .....

Tag this Judgment!


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