Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 10 of about 118 results (0.085 seconds)

Mar 23 2004 (SC)

P.S. Pareed Kaka and ors. Vs. Shafee Ahmed Saheb

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-23-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2049; 2004(3)ALD12(SC); 98(2004)CLT318(SC); 2004(2)CTC364; 2004(2)KLT130(SC); 2004(3)SCALE535; (2004)5SCC241

..... petition was filed under section 21(h) and (j) which reads thus:-'21. protection of tenants against eviction.-(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant:provided .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2004 (SC)

C.M. Beena and anr. Vs. P.N. Ramachandra Rao

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-22-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2103; 2004(3)ALD108(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)460; 2004(3)AWC2226(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(4)CHN16; 2004(3)CTC314; [2004(3)JCR107(SC)]; JT2004(4)SC288; 2004(2)KLT336(SC); 200

..... must, at the end of one year, hand over possession to the licensor by removing all his goods and other immovable from the premises unless by mutual agreement a fresh contract is entered into between the parties. clause (6) entails automatic termination of licence on nonpayment of licence fee. clauses (7) and (8) were much relied on by the learned counsel ..... occupation of the land, though subject to certain reservations, or to a restriction of the purposes for which it may be used, it is prima facie a lease; if the contract is merely for the use of the property in a certain way and on certain terms, while it remains in the possession and under the control of the owner, it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2004 (SC)

Vishwant Kumar Vs. Madan Lal Sharma and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1887; (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN72; 110(2004)DLT404(SC); JT2004(4)SC435; 2004(3)SCALE470; (2004)4SCC1

..... standard rent or the right to get standard rent fixed are protective rights and not vested rights. on the other hand, the landlord has rights recognised under the law of contract and transfer of property act which are vested rights and which are suspended by the provisions of the rent act but the day the rent act is withdrawn, the suspended ..... of the arguments advanced on behalf of the tenant was that the fixation of fair rent under the tamil nadu rent control act could only be downwards from the contracted rent and the contract rent was not to be increased. it was held by this court, by a majority decision, that the tamil nadu rent control act was a complete code in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2004 (SC)

M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh Vs. M.P. Electricity Board

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Reported in : [2004(101)FLR670]; JT2004(3)SC423; (2004)IILLJ470SC; 2004(3)SCALE383; (2004)9SCC755; 2004(2)SLJ414(SC); (2004)2UPLBEC1313

s.b. sinha, j.introduction:1. whether an agreement despite expiry would prevail over a regulation made under section 79(c) of the electricity (supply) act, 1948 (for short 'the act') as regard the age of superannuation of an employee of the respondent-board is the primal question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.9.2001 passed by the high court of judicature of madhya pradesh at jabalpur in l.p.a. no. 34 of 2001.factual background:2. the appellant is a registered union of the employees of the madhya pradesh state electricity board (for short 'the board'). the erstwhile electricity board framed regulations in the year 1952 under section 79(c) of the act known as general service conditions of board servants. in the year 1957, the respondent-board came into existence on re-organisation of the state.3. the state of madhya pradesh enacted the madhya pradesh industrial relations act, 1960 (for short 'the 1960 act') with a view to regulate the relations of employers and employees in certain matters, to make provisions for settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for matters connected therewith. in the year 1961, the state of madhya pradesh also enacted madhya pradesh industrial employment (standing orders) act, 1961 (for short 'the 1961 act') to provide for rules defining with sufficient precision of certain matters relating to the conditions of employment of employees in the state of madhya pradesh. the schedule appended to the 1961 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2004 (SC)

Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-17-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2141; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)771; 2004(4)ALT50(SC); [2004]121CompCas409(SC); (2004)3CompLJ159(SC); II(2004)CPJ12(SC); 2004(2)CTC535; JT2004(5)SC17; 2004(2)KLT999(SC); (20

..... or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. in its narrow sense, 'interest' is understood to mean the amount which one has contracted to pay for use of borrowed money. ... in whatever category 'interest' in a particular case may be put, it is consideration paid either for the use of money or for ..... action may be maintained against such public officer.'in wood v. blair [the times, july 3, 4, 5, 1957 (hallet j and court of appeal] a dairy farmer's manageress contracted typhoid fever and the local authority served notices forbidding him to sell milk, except under certain conditions. these notices were void, and the farmer was awarded damages on the ground ..... court considered the case of lucknow development authority (supra) and held that liability for mental agony had been fixed not within the realms of contract but under principles of administrative law. in this case the award towards mental agony was deleted on the ground that these were no pleadings to that effect and no finding ..... mentioned that learned attorney general had relied upon the case of ghaziabad development authority v. union of india reported in : (2000)6scc113 wherein, whilst considering a case of breach of contract under section 73 of the contract act, it has been held that no damages are payable for mental agony in cases of breach of ordinary commercial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2004 (SC)

Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Timblo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1884; 2004(2)AWC1706(SC); 2004(1)CTLJ351(SC); [2004(2)JCR188(SC)]; 2004(3)SCALE443; (2004)4SCC64; 2004(2)LC857(SC)

..... we direct that the old contractor shall be allowed to collect and transport the same in accordance with the then existing terms of the written contract between the old contractor and the mining-lease-owner. in collecting and transporting the aforementioned quantity of iron ore, the old contractor shall follow not ..... by ignoring the huge investments which have been made by the old contractor to operate the mine under an existing arrangement and alleged renewal of the contract by their mutual conduct.12. in the course of hearing, on behalf of the old contractor, learned counsel has handed over to us in ..... learned counsel for the new contractors, there is no counter suit filed by the old contractor to specifically enforce any alleged agreement of renewal of the contract and such relief cannot be legally granted in view of the bar contained in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of ..... uninterrupted working.9. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the mining lease owner and the new contractors submitted that, in terms of the original contract, a renewal could be made only in writing. reliance is placed on provash chandra dalui and anr. v. biswanath banerjee and anr. and state ..... offer of renewal and consequent conduct of permitting them to work the mine on periodical payments of price in accordance with the original terms of the contract.3. the case of the contesting respondent nos. 1 & 2, who are plaintiffs before the trial court [shortly referred to as the new contractors .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (SC)

Directorate of Education and ors. Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1962; 2004(2)AWC1789(SC); II(2004)BC386(SC); 2004(2)CTC221; 2004(1)CTLJ339(SC); 2004(74)DRJ434; [2004(2)JCR194(SC)]; JT2004(Suppl1)SC502; (2004)1MLJ4(SC); (2004)4SCC19

..... ors. : air2000sc2272 . it was held that the terms and conditions in the tender are prescribed by the government bearing in mind the nature of contract and in such matters the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. it is not ..... unbudgeted expenditure. [emphasis supplied] 10. in air india limited v. cochin international airport limited : [2000]1scr505 , this court observed:'the award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the state, is essentially a commercial transaction. in arriving at a commercial decision ..... duty on the imports of the computers or its components.9. it is well settled now that the courts can scrutinise the award of the contracts by the government or its agencies in exercise of its powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. however, there are inherent limitations ..... , 2003 leave was granted and as an interim measure, the appellants were permitted to go ahead with the processing of the tender applications but no contract was to be awarded without, taking further orders from this court. this order was modified on 14th april, 2003. it was directed that the ..... managed and not seven or eight who individually are not in a position to take up the whole project compelling the government to distribute the contract amongst bidders at the lowest rate having no scope to negotiate the rates any further.4. aggrieved by the term of clause inviting tenders .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (SC)

Joseph J. Kondody Vs. Michael Kuruvilla

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)CTC559

order1. heard the parties.2. the sole appellant was charged and tried under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and by an order rendered by the trial court acquitted of the charge. on appeal being preferred by the complainant before the kerala high court the order of acquittal has been reversed and the appellant has been convicted under section 138 of the act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of rs. 3000 in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. hence this appeal by special leave.3. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties stated that the parties have compromised the matter and filed a petition before this court for grant of permission to compound the offence. in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our [opinion], it is a fit case for according permission to the parties to compound the offence. in view of these facts the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the high court is set aside in view of the compounding.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (SC)

Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1920; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)687; 2004CriLJ1807; JT2004(3)SC380; 2004(3)SCALE93; (2004)3SCC654

arijit pasayat, j. 1. there are some unusual cases when the complainant himself is treated as an accused and made to suffer a trial. the present appeal is a case of that nature. but the persons against whom he made accusations subsequently faced trial, and are the accused so far as the present appeal is concerned. the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. the conviction made and the sentence imposed by the additional district and sessions judge, bhatinda were confirmed by the impugned judgment by a division bench of the punjab and haryana high court.2. the prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:the present three appellants along with jagrup singh and nachhattar singh faced trial for alleged commission of murder of one sukhmander singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). the five accused persons including two who had been acquitted i.e. jagrup singh nachhattar singh were charge sheeted for allegedly hatching a conspiracy for committing the murder of deceased sukhmander singh, thereby committing the offence punishable under section 120b ipc, and in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of deceased with fire arms and thereby committing offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 ipc. the first information report was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2004 (SC)

Gopal Sardar Vs. Karuna Sardar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-2004

Reported in : (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN164; 2004(3)SCALE36; (2004)4SCC252

shivaraj v. patil, j.civil appeal no. 4688 of 1998 1. the respondent made an application under section 8 of the west bengal land reforms act, 1955 (for brevity 'the act') in the munsif court claiming right of pre-emption on the basis of vicinage being the owner of adjoining plots of land purchased on 20.7.1966 and 1.6.1981. according to her, the appellant tried to take forcible possession of the plot no. 1368 adjoining to the east of his land. it is her case that she came to know on 18.9.1985 that the appellant had purchased the said plot no. 1368 on 17.8.1979, which is adjoining the respondent's plot no. 1366. the appellant contested the case denying the material incidents and inter alia contending that the application made under section 8 of the act was barred by limitation. the munsif court condoned the delay on the ground that the respondent had no knowledge of the sale till the date of application and that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within time but dismissed the application on merits finding that on the date of transfer, the respondent was not possessing the longest common boundary. the appeal filed by the respondent against the said order of the munsif court was dismissed by the learned addl. district judge both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. in other words, on merits, the learned addl. district judge concurred with the finding recorded by the munsif court and reversed its finding on the limitation holding that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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