Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: essential indian contract act Page 1 of about 37,843 results (0.181 seconds)

Jul 07 1978 (HC)

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Doon Apartments (P) Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1979Delhi84; 1979RLR7

..... of the written agreement. secondly, the plaintiff does not say that any consideration was agreed between, the parties to support the oral agreement pleaded by the plaintiff. under the indian contract act consideration is essential if the agreement is to be valid. if there is no agreement as to consideration then the agreement is void for uncertainty in view of section 29 of the ..... contract act. is the agreement capable of being made certain so that it may not become void under section 29 the plaintiff does not allege that any provision was made between the ..... capable of being determined. it is, thereforee, not only void for uncertainty under section 29, but is also void for lack of consideration under section 25 of the contract act. section, 23 of the contract act is as follows : 'the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it ..... reason under rule 2 the plaintiff cannot say that in the garb of preventing the defendant from committing a breach of contract, the court should actually compel the defendant to specifically to perform the alleged contract. (16) since temporary injunction is essentially an interim relief pending the decision of the case on merits, ordinarily it has to be a preventive relief and not .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 1961 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Khetan and Co.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1962]45ITR170(Cal)

..... incompetent to contract, cannot make a contract within the meaning of the act. although this case relates to a mortgage by a ..... minor, the privy council lays down the principles and construction of the indian contract act. following the same principle ..... benefit it should even be binding specially if the contract was for necessaries. but in 1903 the privy council in mohori bibee v. dharmodas ghose emphasises the difference between the indian law and the english law and clearly lays down that the indian contract act makes it essential that all contracting parties should be competent to make a contract and a person who by reason of infancy is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1902 (PC)

The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1902)12MLJ453

..... ratangiri v. vyankatrav n. surve 8 b.h.c. 1:-ed., misrepresentation, or mutual mistake as to any matter of fact essential to the agreement (indian contract act, section 17, 18 and 20). the grant, therefore, cannot be annulled or revoked by the officer who made the grant, ..... registration act, the question t for consideration is reduced to this--whether in fact a grant or assignment has been made to the ..... power in this respect to any subordinate officer. such, however, has undoubtedly been the long-standing practice, and such delegation is essential in the class of cases contemplated by the darkhast rules for the administration of the executive government of the presidency, which is vested ..... with the provisions of the said statutes. the crown grants (india) act vii of 1895 exempts crown grants from the operation of the transfer of property act (1882) and section 17(j) and 90(d) of the indian registration act (1877) exempt from registration, ' grants of immoveable property by ..... government' and 'all documents purporting to be or to evidence grants or assignments by government of land or of any interest in land.'11. having regard therefore to the two admissions above referred to, made by the counsel for the crown and the provisions of the crown grants act and the indian .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1971 (HC)

Ram NaraIn Laxman Prasad Vs. Income-tax Officer, d Ward and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1972]84ITR233(All)

..... to contract, could not make a contract within the meaning of that act. by section 11 of the act, a minor's agreement is altogether void and unenforceable. the definition of ..... firm. a minor, lacking contractual capacity, cannot enter into a contract. in mohori bibee v. dharmodas ghose, [1903] l.r. 30 i.a. 114; i.l.r. 30 cal. 539 (p.c.) the privy council pointed out that under the indian contract act it was essential that all contractual parties should be competent to contract and that a person, who by reason of infancy was incompetant ..... 'partnership' in section 4 of the indian partnership act necessarily envisages an agreement between ..... by the expression ' a change in the constitution of the firm ' used in different places in those sections. for that we must turn to the law contained in the indian partnership act.15. we may now examine the cases to which reference has been madebefore us. reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner-firm onthe b. c. g. a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1995 (HC)

S.K. Gupta Vs. Ashok Malhotra and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1995IIIAD(Delhi)51; 1995(2)ARBLR95(Delhi); 1995(33)DRJ594

..... . in the case of ranbaxy laboratories ltd. v. doon apartments (p) ltd. 2nd 1979 1 delhi 84, it is held that under the indian contract act consideration is essential if the agreement is to be valid.. if there is no agreement as to consideration then the agreement is void for lack of consideration and also ..... for uncertainty in view of sections 23 and 29 of the indian contract act. it is further held that 'sections 92 and 115 are both provisions of the same evidence act ..... sale of property and, thereforee, uncertain and not precise as regards the consideration for the suit transaction and, thereforee, against sections 23 and 29 of the contract act. (14) in view of the above, the alleged agreement of sale dated 15.12.1987 being uncertain, indefinite and not precise as regards consideration it ..... sought must be definite and precise- if it is uncertain no oral evidence is admissible to add to its terms and the contract would be void under section 29 of the contract act. (13) in absence of any consideration for the alleged agreement of sale dated 15.12.1987 there is no valid agreement ..... the plaintiff. (2) it has been submitted by ms. kumud nijhawan counsel for the plaintiff that the receipt dated 15.12.1987 is a conclusive contract for the property worth rs.8,00,000.00 ; that defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1 and defendant no 1 had the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1995 (HC)

S.K. Gupta Vs. Shri Ashok Malhotra

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1995(34)DRJ705

..... a price acceptable to both the sides. in the case of ranbaxy laboratories ltd. v. doon apartments (p) ltd. ilr 1979 delhi 84, it is held that under the indian contract act consideration is essential if the agreement is to be valid. if there is no agreement as to consideration then the agreement ment is void for lack of consideration and also for uncertainty ..... the consideration for the sale of property and, thereforee, uncertain and not precise as regards the consideration for the suit transaction and, thereforee, against sections 23 and 29 of the contract act. 14. in view of the above, the alleged agreement of sale dated 15.12.1987 being uncertain indefinite and not precise as regards consideration it cannot be said that the ..... which specific performance is sought must be definite and precise - if it is uncertain no oral evidence is admissible to add to its terms and the contract would be void under section 29 of the contract act. 13. in absence of any consideration for the alleged agreement of sale dated 15.12.1987 there is no valid agreement as to consideration between the ..... of any person other than the plaintiff. 2. it has been submitted by ms. kumud nijhawan counsel for the plaintiff that the receipt dated 15.12.1987 is a conclusive contract for the property worth rs. 8,00,000/- that defendant no. 2 is the wife of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1 had the implied authority; that defendants agreed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1906 (PC)

Muthu Veera Vandayan Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1906)ILR29Mad461

..... disposal of the land, unless the grant was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or mutual mistake as to any matter of fact essential to the agreement (indian contract act, sections 17, 18 and 20). the grant, therefore, cannot be annulled or revoked by the officer who made the grant, by his successor ..... not by himself but was by the proper appellate authority. in the case of tirumalaiswami avyangar v. tirumalai gounden i.l.r. 19 mad. 324 the essential facts were exactly similar to those in the present case. the collector granted certain land to a and issued a patta at the jamabandi. b after that ..... procedure if the court is of opinion that there has been no irregularity. if no grant has been made, there is no contract. if grant has been made, there is a coii'litional contract.11. in the collector of salem v. rangappa i.l.r. 12 mad. 404 a patta which had been issued to ..... in such a matter, it is equally incompetent to interfere with the appellate darkhast authority in regard to the same matter, so long as that authority acts within the scope of its authority for that would, in effect, be an assumption of the appellate jurisdiction by the civil court instead of by the ..... grant by reason of the subordinate officer not having observed the formalities prescribed by the darkhast rules or for any other reason, notwithstanding that the granting offioer acted within the scope of his authority ' sappani asari v. the collector of coimbatore i.l.r. 26 mad. 742 and again the same learned judge in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1952 (HC)

The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of West Godawari Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1953Mad235; (1952)1MLJ689

..... disposal of the land, unless the grant was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or mutual mistake as to any matter of fact essential to the agreement (indian contract act, sections 17, 18 & 20). the grant, therefore, cannot be annulled or revoked by the officer who made the grant, by his successor in office or even by the governor in ..... of appeal, the grant of such land within the scope of his authority is binding on government. the other is that a grant like any other disposition arising out of contract can be set aside if it is procured by 'fraud'.....'this decision does not lay down that when the agent of the government, say the tahsildar, revenue divisional officer or ..... tahsildar, as the case may be, has sold away or assigned rights in certain land by means of a duly stamped and registered document though according to the crown grants act then in force no such registration or stamp for the document was necessary. the grant of a patta is tantamount to assignment by a registered document and when it is ..... collector: but it is really and in essence one passed nominally by the collector but under the directions of the board of revenue who themselves have ordered the collector to act in the manner he did under the behest of the government. the result comes to this, that when under ex. b. 20 the board of revenue refused to interfere with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2005 (HC)

Abn Amro Bank Nv. Vs. Mr. Ratan Lal Varma and Sons

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 120(2005)DLT439

..... defend, lest prejudice is caused to either party to the stage of trial. i may only note that privity of consideration is not essential under the indian contract act 1872 for the reason as per clause d of section 2 of the indian contract act, 1872 consideration is defined as:-2(d) when, at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done ..... or abstained from doing or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration ..... .12.2000 against simultaneous refund of security deposits. according to the plaintiff defendant no. 2 negotiated when said mutually agreed date for vacation was agreed i.e. defendant no. 2 acted on behalf of defendants 1 and 3 and simultaneously the amounts of security became refundable. as per the plaintiff date of vacation was postponed to 31.1.2001 at request .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1924 (PC)

Avugaddi Jogamma and ors. Vs. Lalam Pothanna

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1925Mad763; (1925)48MLJ287

..... that any act done by the promisee should have been so done at the desire of the promisor. there is no proof that ..... contract supported by consideration. so far as the other antecedent facts are concerned, namely, the looking after of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant, the cultivation of the plaintiff's lands by her sons, these and other similar facts to which i have referred, would not in law amount to consideration, as under section 2 (b) of the indian contract act it would be essential ..... in maddison v. alderson (1883) lr 8 ac 467, 'founded on such part-performance the defendant is really ' charged ' upon the equities resulting from the acts done in execution of the contract and not upon the contract itself. if such equities were excluded, injustice of a kind which the statute cannot be thought to have had in contemplation would follow.' this court gave ..... acts done by the 1st defendant or her children were done at the desire of the plaintiff, and accordingly so far as these facts are concerned they would not constitute a valid consideration for the contract. it is .....

Tag this Judgment!


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