Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: operation of law indian contract act Page 1 of about 46,611 results (0.187 seconds)

Nov 24 1961 (HC)

Gurdarshan Singh S/O. Dalip Singh and anr. Vs. Bishan Singh S/O. Uttam ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1963P& H49

..... doctrine of frustration, as embodied in section 56 of the contract act, did not apply. the doctrine of frustration, which term is not used in the indian contract act, under the english law operates to excuse further performance of the contract.'where (1) it appears from the nature of the contract and the surrounding circumstances that the parties have contracted on the basis that some fundamental thing or state of ..... of some supervening illegality or impossibility. this doctrine is given statutory recognition in india and so far as we are concerned we can look primarily to the law as embodied in sections 32 and 56, indian contract act, 1872. it was so observed by fazal ali, i. in ganga saran v. firm ram charan, air 1952 sc 9. mukherjea, j. (as he then ..... in favour of the view that the doctrine of frustration is applicable to the completed contracts of lease. as has been observed by mukherjea, j. in satyabrata's case, so far as indian courts are concerned, law of frustration has been incorporated in sections 32 and 56 of the indian contract act and courts cannot go beyond them on analogy of principles of english common ..... law or otherwise.the only cases where relief can be had by a lessee, who under the contract of lease has entered into possession, for any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 2014 (SC)

Pratima Chowdhury Vs. Kalpana Mukherjee and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the flat no.5d of the defendant no.2 society was not done in accordance with laws including west bengal co- operative socities act, rules, indian contract act, transfer of property act due to reason at a glance.1) section 85(9), section 70, section 69 of west bengal co- operative socities act 1983 have been flouted.2) rule 127(1), rule 135(3)(a), rule 142(1) have ..... been flouted.3) bye-laws have been contradicted.4) no consideration money was paid by the defendant no ..... undue influence. the instant case is one of gift but it is well settled that the law as to undue influence is the same in the case of a gift inter- vivos as in the case of a contract. under s. 16 (1) of the indian contract act a contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are ..... ) besides the above factual conclusions drawn by the arbitrator, the arbitrator had also concluded that the society violated various provisions of the west bengal co-operative societies act, 1983, and the rules framed thereunder, as also the bye-laws of the society. the arbitrator summarized the conclusions drawn on the legal issues as under:- keeping in view of the all above, i am .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2000 (HC)

Ashok Mahansing Bajaj H.U.F. Vs. Elegant Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Othe ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR242; 2000(3)BomCR169; (2000)1BOMLR968; 2000(2)MhLj855

..... reading of section 37 of the negotiable instruments act and section 126 of the indian contract act and a minute comparison thereof leaves no manner of doubt that an acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot be considered to be guarantor since he is the principal debtor himself. the liability of acceptor is independent since by operation of law, an acceptor of bill of exchange is ..... also a debtor. it is not even necessary under law for the ..... the industrial company. therefore, it can only mean guarantee given by a person other than an industrial company. also in its plain meaning and construing the various provisions of the indian contract act including the rights of the guarantors, i am of the respectful opinion that the words cannot be read in a manner as was construed by the division bench in madalsa ..... industrial company itself and none else. the question of a principal giving a guarantee to oneself with respect to the division bench will not arise, if certain, provision of the indian contract act itself are referred to and to which its attention was not invited. in fact before the division bench the facts as they stood was that the proceedings in execution were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1928 (PC)

Pestonji Manekji Mody Vs. Bai Meherbai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1928Bom539; (1928)30BOMLR1407

..... note. the fact that by operation of law the liability of the principal debtor is limited to the estate in her hands does not in any way affect the contract of guarantee except in so far as any limitation is imported by section 128 of the indian contract act. but it has been urged ..... gives a promissory note in consideration of a time-barred debt is precisely within the terms of the 3rd exception to section 25 of the indian contract act, for he is a person against whom but for the statute of limitation the creditor might have enforced payment, to the extent of course ..... in her personal capacity defendant no. 1, by executing this promissory note, incurred no liability by virtue of anything contained in section 25 of the indian contract act.16. but it is further urged that there was consideration for the promissory note of another kind. it is said that there was a compromise, ..... those debts. and if she undertook to pay those time-barred debts, she can only be held liable by virtue of section 25 of the indian contract act. section 25 begins by reciting that an agreement made without consideration is void. that is the general rule laid down, and there follow three ..... that so far as defendant no. 2 is concerned there is no consideration for the contract .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1947 (PC)

The Nellore Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. by Its Secretary, Mr. V. Venk ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1948Mad252; (1947)2MLJ487

..... omission of his destroy that debt. if he does so, the surety's liability is gone (section 134 of the indian contract act). but if the debt of the principal is discharged by operation of law it has been held that the surety is not discharged (see subramanian chettiar v. batcha rowther : air1942mad145 . as, however, the discharge of a debt under section 10(2) of ..... , however, not to say that once a decree is passed against the principal debtor and the surety, all the provisions of the indian contract act defining the rights and liabilities of the parties to a contract of guarantee cease to have operation. the effect of a decree, and the award passed by a competent authority under a special statute such as we have here stands ..... have already observed, it is only those rules of law which govern the creditor's rights against principal debtor and surety that cease to operate so far as' to affect such rights after they are determined and declared by a decree for they alone are the subject of adjudication. section 135 of the indian contract act is one such rule and section 134 is another ..... ), the surety will also be discharged, not by the operation of section 10(2) of the debt conciliation act which by itself does not affect the remedy of the creditor against the principal debtor but by virtue of section 134 of the indian contract act. the real and only question, therefore, is whether section 134 of the indian contract act is applicable to a case where, as here .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2010 (HC)

Dr. M.i. Itty Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation,

Court : Kerala

..... ltd. and ors., (supra) interpreting section 141 of the indian contract act held that where there was no deliberate act on the part of the principal debtor which led to the loss of the security and the security was lost not by any definite act of the creditor or the debtor, but by the operation of law over which none of the parties had any control, it ..... doubt discharged under section 134 of the indian contract act by any contract between the creditor and the principal debtor by which the principal debtor is released or by any act or omission of the creditor, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal debtor, but a discharge which the principal debtor may secure by operation of law in bankruptcy (or in liquidation proceedings ..... cannot be said that the surety is discharged. the apex court also negatived the contention that by reason of the non-availability of the security in terms of section 141 of the indian contract act, 1872, the contract of guarantee stood frustrated. therefore, the guarantors .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1924 (PC)

Raghavendra Gururao Naik Vs. Mahipat Krishna

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1925Bom244; (1925)27BOMLR178

..... creditor can enforce his right against the surety. in this case the effect of the various sections of the indian contract act has been considered with reference to a state of facts under which by operation of law, though the claim against the principal debtor was barred, it was enforceable against the surety. the same view ..... unenforceable on account of limitation. that in not a sufficient ground for disallowing the right which is given to him under h. 145 of the indian contract act.7. i am unable to agree with the reasons given in suja v. pahlwan for the contrary view. it is not necessary to attempt to ..... cause of action in respect of his liability to indemnify the surety arises when the surety in fact pays the amount under section 145 of the indian contract act. even if it involves worns hardship, i do not think it can afford any reasonable basis for holding- that the payment made by the surety ..... decretal debt. it is not reasonable, in my opinion, to hold that he paid the sum wrongfully within the meaning of section 145 of the indian contract act when he paid it in satisfaction of a decree passed against him. it must be treated as a sum rightfully paid under the guarantee. the ..... him in respect of his liability as a surety, he made the payment rightfully under the guarantee, within the meaning of section 145 of the indian contract act, and that he is entitled to recover it from the principal debtor, quite independently of the consideration whether the claim of the original creditor was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2009 (HC)

Rachhpal Singh Vs. Swaran Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2009)155PLR438

..... in contravention of sub-section (3) of section 6 was void and after noticing the provisions of section 56 of the indian contract act, 1872, the high court held that after the promulgation of 1981 act by reason of operation of law, the contract has become void and the plaintiff was entitled only to the refund of consideration. while affirming the decision of the high court ..... , the hon'ble supreme court of india observed as under:section 56 of the indian contract act, 1872 (in short 'the act') provides that an agreement to do an ..... act impossible in itself is void. a contract to do an act ..... to sell between the parties has become void by reasons of operation of law as the courts below have failed to consider the provisions of section 10 of the transfer of property act, 1882 before reaching the conclusion that agreement ex.p1 was unlawful agreement under the provisions of section 56 of the indian contract act and under section 10 of the transfer of property .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1933 (PC)

V. Kothandapani Chetti Vs. K.C. Sreemanavedan Raja Alias Valia Kunhi T ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1934Mad162; (1934)66MLJ625

..... . if the partnership was dissolved in april, 1920, there was no undis-solved partnership, for the dissolution of which the plaintiff had to file a suit. the partnership was dissolved by operation of law ..... nature of the suit that is filed in court in determining whether a particular article of the limitation act is applicable. when srinivasaraghavacharya died in 1920, under section 253 of the indian contract act the partnership was dissolved by his death, subject to the argument to be noticed under the second heading ..... was not bound to claim a dissolution on that account. in the meantime srinivasaraghavacharya died and the partnership became dissolved by operation of law. (see section 253(10) of the contract act.) it would be futile to ask the court to dissolve a partnership, which has already become dissolved. the suit then ..... as the term for which the partnership was to subsist. in the face of the express provision contained in section 253(10) of the contract act which says,partnerships, whether entered into for a fixed term or not, are dissolved by the death of any partner,this argument is of no ..... the alienation by the 1st defendant of his interest gave the plaintiff the right to claim a dissolution (see section 254(3) of the contract act). that being the plaintiff's cause of action, he could file a suit under article 120 within six years from the date of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2012 (HC)

National Building Construction Corporation Vs. Essel Properties and In ...

Court : Delhi

..... is well known, lien can be both contractual as well as one, which flows by virtue of operation of law. to cite an example: general lien qua bankers, provided under section 171 of the indian contract act, 1872; is a lien which arises by virtue of operation of law. lien is nothing but an interest, encumbrance or charge created for payment of a debt or, performance of ..... an obligation or, duty (see black's law dictionary 6th edition page 922). this is in so far as the first ..... learned arbitrator. therefore, the security deposit which was withheld by the appellant pending adjudication of its claims, triggered the prohibition against payment of interest under clause 29(1) of the contract. that being so the learned arbitrator could not have awarded interest. the position on this aspect is enunciated in the following judgments of the supreme court: sayeed ahmed and co ..... . respondents raised claim arising from the execution of the project; since they were not resolved, resort was taken to the arbitration clause, i.e., clause 18.1 incorporated in the contract. the appellant acceded to the request and accordingly its chairman-cum-managing director vide, letter dated 11.03.1998 appointed sh. v. r. vaish as the sole arbitrator. parties raised .....

Tag this Judgment!


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