Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: rajasthan Year: 1951 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.015 seconds)

Sep 11 1951 (HC)

Kishan Lal and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-11-1951

Reported in : AIR1952Raj81

..... where the performance is to take place ('lex loci solutionis'). 4. these rules were subject to the overriding consideration that the validity or invalidity of a contract must be determined in accordance with the law of the forum ('lex fori') independency of the law of any foreign country if and so far as ..... an expectation of profit though losses might occur. the payment of profits to defendant or losses to plaintiffs must be deemed to be part of the contract of agency. as no specific terms have been alleged to have been settled between the parties, the general law will apply in deciding the place where ..... custom and usage of the market. in the circumstances, it would be useless to grant any opportunity for further evidence and the point whether the contract was to be performed in whole or in part in marwar is to be decided on the pleadings and certain admitted facts together with the general ..... within marwar, and not because the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose in marwar. the defendant, on the other hand, completely denied that any contract had been entered into at all with the indore firm. there is no doubt, therefore, that the first point, formulated by the division bench, raised an ..... state.7. when the matter came in appeal before the division bench, three points, which were formulated as below were agitated:'1. that since the contracts were neither made nor intended to be performed in part or in whole in marwar and were, on the contrary, made and performed in indore where .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1951 (HC)

Madangopal Kabra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-09-1951

Reported in : AIR1951Raj94a; [1951]20ITR214(Raj)

..... -tax comr. or the income tax officer, jodhpur, were not parties to the petn., a writ could not be issued against them, (b) that the instrument of accession was a contract between the govt. of india & the rajpramukh of rajasthan & while it was open to either of them to claim enforcement of its provisions, the subject was not competent in law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1951 (HC)

Hasti Mal and anr. Vs. Shanker Dan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-26-1951

Reported in : AIR1952Raj7

..... of liability only allowed extension of limitation if made before expiration of the period of limitation but did not create a new right. it did not operate as a new contract but only kept alive the original cause of action and consequently it could not form an independent cause of action or a basis for a suit.'3. when the reference ..... which the entire case law has been fully discussed. for the reasons given in that judgment we hold that a mere acknowledgment of debt does not operate as a new contract and cannot be made a basis of the suit. it only keeps alive the original cause of action, and the suit must be founded on such original cause of action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1951 (HC)

Sawa Vs. Kuka

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1951

Reported in : AIR1951Raj66

..... & the suit was not barred by limitation, the pltf should succeed even if the mtge was not proved. it was also argued that the transaction of mtge was by oral contract & the evidence led in support thereof should have been accepted by the two cts. the learned counsel for the resp argued that whatever may have been the law in mewar .....

Tag this Judgment!

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