Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mistake indian contract act Page 1 of about 14,576 results (0.144 seconds)

Nov 28 1988 (HC)

Milkfood Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1989(41)ELT629(Del)

..... mistakes was recorded, the claim could be made within three years from the date of the discovery of the ..... it was barred by time under section 11-b of the central excises and salt act, 1944. 4. ld counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice various authorities of the supreme court holding that the word 'mistakes' used in section 72 of the indian contract act means 'mistake of law as well as mistake of fact.' under the judgments of the supreme court of the ..... the arguments and proceeding to decide the matter. 2. petitioners in this petition seek declaration that the monies paid between 1st august, 1974 to 8th april, 1977 were paid under mistake of law and retention thereof by respondents not only violates article 265 of the constitution of india but is without jurisdiction. petitioners further seek appropriate writ for quashing the orders ..... of the petitioners afresh. the claim would not be dismissed because of bar under section 11b of the central excises and salt act, 1944 and be decided on merits keeping in view the various decisions of the supreme court regarding mistake of law and limitation etc. 8. the matter would be decided by the board within six months from today. 9. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1955 (HC)

State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1956All383; [1956]7STC579(All)

..... ). 18. on the other hand in -- 'jagadish prosad v. produce exchange corporation ltd air 1946 cal 245 (i), it was held that the word 'mistake' in section 72, indian contract act included not only a mistake of fact but also a mistake of law and if was further pointed out that this section did not conflict with section 21, because that section dealt not with a ..... & sons v. dadiba khimji & co.', 44 bom 631 at p. 649 (f). this was so held because of the provisions of section 21, indian contract act which provides that a contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in british india. 17. in some cases the only point considered was whether the tax which was round ..... contended that the principle upon which the advocate general relies has no application in india; it founds its claim on section 72, indian contract act which provides that a person to whom money has been paid' or any-thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.' to this the advocate general replies that the state government is not a 'person ..... ' within the meaning of this section and that the mistake to which the section refers must be a mistake of fact. 4. the word 'person' is not defined in the indian contract act, and unless there is anything repugnant in the context it will by virtue of section 3(39), general clauses .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2009 (HC)

Tci Distribution Centers Vs. Official Liquidator

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2009)8MLJ1238

..... perpetrates a fraud on the auction purchaser then certainly the latter would have an independent right of action to recover the purchase-money.49. while considering section 20 of the indian contract act, 1872, in respect of the mistake of one of the parties as to the fact regarding the nature of the company's interest in the lands, which would make the ..... is whether the courts below were correct in holding that there was no mutual mistake so as to render the agreement void ab initio under section 20 of the contract act.22. section 20 of the indian contract act, 1872 provides that where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void ..... question and no cause for the applicant's grievance in this behalf will survive.relying on section 20 of the indian contract act, 1872, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since the applicant had submitted their bid under a mistake as to a matter of fact regarding the nature of the company's interest in the lands in question, the ..... contention.50. in i.t.c. ltd. v. george joseph fernandes : [1989]1scr469 , the supreme court, while referring to section 20 of the indian contract act, in respect of mistake of fact essential to the agreement, which would otherwise make the agreement void, has held that the contract becomes void only if some terms can be implied in both offer and acceptance, which prevents the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1979 (HC)

Andhra Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1980(6)ELT16(AP)

..... claim is barred under rule 11 therefore fails. 5. next it is urged on behalf of the company that the claim amount was paid under 'mistake' within the meaning of section 72 of the indian contract act and the mistake came to be dispelled on march 11, 1976 when the madras high court decided the dispute within six weeks. therefore on april 28, 1977 the ..... section 72 of the indian contract act ..... was lodged on november 9, 1977. the argument is that the claim made within six months of the realisation of mistake cannot be held to have been barred under the indian limitation act, 1963. 6. the scope of 'mistake' in section 72 of the contract act is now settled for the privy council in shiba prasad singh vs. srish chandra nandi - (1) 76 i.a. 244 ..... held : payment made on a wrong view of the law when money was not 'due' can be received under section 72 of the act. this interpretation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1939 (PC)

The City Municipality Vs. Nusserwanji Hormusji Madon

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1940Bom252; (1940)42BOMLR491

..... india...a right of that kind could not have been intended by lord westbury...as being cases of mistake as to private rights.section s 20 and 21 of the indian contract act show that a mistake of fact gives rise to a cause of action but a mistake of law cannot be the basis of a suit. in my opinion, therefore, the lower courts erred ..... in holding that article 96 of the indian limitation act was applicable to the case. as i have pointed out, article ..... the claim was time-barred. at the hearing all issues except the question of limitation were given up. both the lower courts held that article 96 of the indian limitation act applied, and as the mistake became known on december 1, 1931, allowed the plaintiffs' claim. in the appeal here it is first contended that under section 206 of the bombay municipal boroughs ..... no case was suggested that theexcess payment was made under illegal compulsion. the important point to be considered is that article 96 of the indian limitation act applies when the cause of action is founded on mistake. it is common knowledge that a mistake of law does not give a cause of action to a party. it may be that in addition to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1928 (PC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1928Bom510; (1928)30BOMLR1160

..... to the market value.20. it is, therefore, made plain in that case that if a mistake has been made it can be rectified. i do not read that word 'mistake' as being confined to a mistake under the indian contract act. i think it would also cover an error. here ex hypothesi there was an error made, viz., ..... the assessment is for the year 1926-1927 and is in respect of the profits for the year 1925-26. this is under section 3 of the indian income-tax act 1922 which imposes a tax in respect of profits of the previous year. then if one turns to the definition of 'previous year' in section ..... chengalvaraya ghetti i.l.r (1925) mad. 836 it is described as a rough and ready manner of ascertaining the profits. but if, for instance, a mistake or an error has been made in the previous year as regards the stock in question surely there must be some way of correcting it in the subsequent ..... heard before any such order is made. similarly, under section 52 certain false statements are to be treated as offences committed under section 177 of the indian penal code. of course in addition to those penalties there is a provision made under sections 34 for reopening assessments within a certain period of time. ..... what was objected to by the commissioner in that particular case.22. the matter may further be tested by this that there are several clauses in the act for protecting the public against frauds on the revenue. for instance, under section 23 there is power to the commissioner to impose a penalty on an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1966 (HC)

Tarachand Gupta and Bros. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1971)73BOMLR558

..... for the plaintiffs' use.21. now no doubt under section 72 of the indian contract act money paid by mistake or coercion can be claimed back upon an allegation to that effect being established as if upon an implied contract to repay the money, but that is an additional cause of action to the ..... statute even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made final, if the said tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the act but in violation of its provisions.here again, therefore, the question which can be agitated in a suit in a civil court is stated ..... the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded, where the provisions of the statute have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, the civil courts have jurisdiction to examine those cases.therefore, the crucial test is whether ..... come to the contrary conclusion and held the plaintiffs not guilty of importing the goods contrary to the provisions of the imports and exports (control) act, if that decision had been before them. unfortunately, the decision was given after both the orders of the collector of customs and of the central ..... days of its receipt, why penal action should not be taken against them and the goods confiscated under section 167(5) of the sea customs act. obviously the offence suggested was the importing of unlicensed articles into india. the plaintiffs were informed that 'the goods have been mis described as motor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1919 (PC)

Wolf and Sons Vs. Dadiba Khimji and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1919)21BOMLR986; 58Ind.Cas.465

..... the present case.40. i am, therefore, of opinion that the agreements entered into by the liquidator with the defendants were 'contracts' within the meaning of the indian contract act and could not be avoided under section 21 as being made under any mistake of law that being so, i am further of opinion that the payments made to the defendants were payments under this ..... the result, therefore, i respectfully agree with the learned trial judge that the payments in question cannot be recovered by the plaintiffs under either section 72 or 65 of the indian contract act and that accordingly their claim fails.47. as regards the counter-claim, the position at first sight seems somewhat different, for here it is the defendants who are claiming moneys ..... to be void.' i agree with the learned trial judge that the word 'agreement' as used in that section does not apply to the pre-war contracts, for they were 'contracts' within the meaning of the indian contract act and not 'agreements'. as regards the subsequent agreements, the parties knew all the material facts and i doubt whether the words 'discovered to be void' are ..... binding contract, and could not be recovered under section 72.41. in this view of the case, i need not decide whether section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1922 (PC)

In Re: Ramchandra Ganuji Waikar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1927)29BOMLR1167

..... they were put first in argument. but really we have our own contract act in india, and i think that the section on the point is very clear. section 72 of the indian contract act runs :-a person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.10. on the ..... facts here i think it is perfectly clear that there was a mistake; namely, that when the official assignee procured a ..... as far as he was concerned the case stands differently. but taking the case of mr. kemp's client where the creditor himself has made no mistake, but the mistake was done by the court through one of its own officials, if one was only to say that he might share in some future dividend he ..... costs which he thought adequate and paid away the balance. but in fact the sum proved inadequate. consequently the court declined to interfere because it was not a mistake of fact but sheer laziness.21. then other cases cited to me were ex parte day : in the matter of fenton (1831) 1 mon. 212; ex ..... claiming a refund from these four respondents and thus supporting mr. justice kanga's order is a very strong one. mr. kemp puts the case as one of mistake of fact. he referred me to two leading english authorities on the subject, viz., standish v. ross (1849) 3 exch rep. 527 and to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1958 (SC)

Sales Tax Officer, Banaras and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1959SC135; [1959]1SCR1350; [1958]9STC747(SC)

..... given a limited meaning appear to have been largely influenced by the view expressed in pollock and mulla's commentary on section 72 of the indian contract act, where it is stated (indian contract & specific relief acts, 6th edn., p. 402): ' mistake of law is not expressly excluded by the words of this section ; but section 21 shows that it is not included '. for example, wolf and ..... . produce exchange corporation ltd. a.i.r. 1946 cal. 245, that the word ' mistake ' in section 72 of the indian contract act included not only a mistake of fact but also a mistake of law and it was further pointed out that this section did not conflict with section 21 because that section dealt not with ..... mad. 177. in reaching those decisions the courts were particularly influenced by the english decisions and also provisions of section 21 of the indian contract act which provides that a contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in british india. on the other hand, the calcutta high court had decided in jagdish prasad pannalal v ..... was not by itself enough to preclude the respondent from recovering the said amounts, once it was established that the payments were made under a mistake of law. on a true interpretation of section 72 of the indian contract act the only two circumstances there indicated as entitling the party to recover the money back are that the monies must have been paid by .....

Tag this Judgment!


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