Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: privity of contract indian contract act Page 1 of about 69,760 results (0.296 seconds)

Jan 03 1927 (PC)

India General Navigation and Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Girdharilal Gobardhone D ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1927Cal394

..... for loss due to their own negligence not on the basis of any contract with the owner of the goods but on the basis of their liability as common carrier under the indian carriers act even in the absence of privity of contract with the owner. but the observations of the learned chief justice quoted above ..... first, that the suit should have been dismissed against defendant no. 4 as there was no service of notice on them under section 10 of the indian carriers act (3 of 1865). it is said that although notice was served on the local agents of the company at daulat khan, no notice having been ..... under section 10 should be served on the agent at calcutta and there is no such corresponding provision in the carriers act as we have in section 140 of the indian railways act and consequently the cases cited have no application. we think this contention of the learned vakil for the respondents is well ..... to certain findings of fact. he found that the east indian railway company was acting as an agent of the steamer company to carry goods and, therefore, he held that as the goods were lost the steamer company, which had entered into a contract to send the goods to bankura, were liable for the ..... a parallel series of contracts.9. the district judge has made the defendant steam navigation co., ltd. liable for the negligence of the east indian railway co., treating the latter as the agent of steam navigation co., within the meaning of section 8 of the indian carriers act. whether in the absence of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1914 (PC)

The South Indian Industrials Limited formerly known as the Arbuthnot's ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1915Mad509; (1914)27MLJ501

..... facts is that the defendants were the sub-agents of the firm of arbuthnot & co. who were the agentsof the plaintiff company and that under section 192 of the indian contract act and the decisions there was no privity between the plaintiff company and the defendants and that on this ground the present suit should have been dismissed. in all these transactions the defendants ..... an agreement unless the relation of the defendants, to the firm was that of sub-agents in which case there would clearly be no privity between the plaintiff company and the defendants. see section 192 of the indian contract act.12. putting aside the question of sub-agency for the moment, i think the evidence on record is sufficient to prove an agreement disentitling ..... the principal was disclosed, the personal liability of the agent was upheld on the ground that he did not sign as agent. there is nothing in section 230 of the indian contract act which makes a departure from the rule of english law, as contended for by mr. richmond. that section is not exhaustive of the rules of evidence. there is no authority ..... no other claims against it on the part of the firm. where the agent enters into a written contract in his own name there is a contract enabling him to sue and be sued on it within the meaning of section 230 of the indian contract act,7. none the less of course, the plaintiff company as principals would ordinarily be entitled under section 226 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2000 (HC)

Bhanumathy Agencies Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2001]104CompCas454(Mad)

..... in exhibit a-4 coupled with a-3, and by virtue of the operation of sections 69 and 70 of the indian contracts act, there are sufficient materials to establish privity of contract between the first respondent and the appellant. section 70 of the contract act reads thus :'where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so ..... appeal. learned counsel, at the outset, submitted that exhibit a-4 coupled with exhibit a-3 were sufficient to establish the privity of contract between the first respondent and the appellant ; that under such circumstances, sections 69 and 70 of the indian contract act will come into operation and, therefore, the contentions of the appellant that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties will ..... was liable to meet the claim of the first respondent made in the suit. the whole transaction being one coming within the provisions of sections 69 and 70 of the indian contract act, it cannot be held that the appellant was not a necessary party to the suit proceedings. the judgment and decree of the trial court is, therefore, confirmed. having regard to ..... supply the machinery to the second respondent. therefore, what is left to be considered is whether the appellant has acted in conformity with the provisions of section 70 of the indian contract act.12. from the pleadings, documents and the evidence available on record, i could say that the appellant received the sum of rs. 26,174.75 being the invoice value under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1942 (PC)

Ramchandra Lalbhai Vs. Chinubhai Lalbhai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1943)45BOMLR1075

..... namely, the lal mills, in the business of the agency and, therefore, he was constituted a substituted agent under section 194 of the indian contract act and a privity was established between him and the lal mills. mr. taraporevala further contends that if that is so, the defendant cannot revoke the nomination ..... terminate the authority of the defendant. even if the position of plaintiff no. 1 was that of a substituted agent under section 194 of the indian contract act, i hold that even so the defendant could revoke the nomination.60. it was further argued by mr. taraporevala that in any event the ..... agent to revoke the authority of a substituted agent. to my mind the contention of mr. taraporevala is clearly erroneous. section 195 of the indian contract act provides that in selecting a substituted agent under section 194, an agent is bound to exercise the same amount of discretion as a man of ..... ch. 420.12. the nomination (exhibit h) of plaintiff no. 1 by defendant is revocable as it is not coupled with interest; section 202 of the indian contract act, 1872.13. v.f. taraporevala. chinubhai lalbhai & bros., ltd., was formed as a device to get capital and deposits for lal mills. as joint ..... , and the only person who can do so would be the principal, namely, the lal mills. he says that the indian contract act nowhere provides for the right .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1963 (HC)

Dhan Singh Yadav and anr. Vs. Badri Prasad

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1963Raj198

..... -payment in the sum of rs. 487/8/- was made on account of a bona fide mistake and this amount was recoverable under section 72 of the indian contract act, even though there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant. he, however, held that the plaintiff-respondents had no locus standi to sue the defendant because they were merely employees of ..... 72 had to be made and not its employees. the learned civil judge was right when he held that the principle enunciated in section 72 of the indian contract act was applicable regardless of the fact whether a privity of contract did or did not exist between the parties. there is ample authority for the proposition that the doctrine embodied in this section of the ..... indian contract act has for its foundation the doctrine of equity that whatever has been done under a mistake has to be repaired. that being the position of law the only ..... merely lays down a doctrine of equitable restitution, without specifying the party to whom restitution has to be made. the enforcement of the liability arising under section 72 of the indian contract act is available to a person injured due to the failure to discharge the liability. such a question was not before their lordships of the supreme court and this decision, therefore .....

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

..... leave to 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 ..... .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 ..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1992 (HC)

Singer Sewing Machine Vs. Uttar Pradesh Export Corporation Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 47(1992)DLT659; 1992(23)DRJ129

..... to the plaintiff ex.p.1/ 5 wherein it was pointed out that the plaintiff should approach for payment to defendant no. 1 because the privity of contract for the supply of these machines was between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and not with any other defendant. (7) mr. m.m ..... liability to pay was denied. it is only for the first time in the written statement that this plea has been taken. in fact, the privity of contract being with defendant no. 1 and the order having been placed by defendant no. 1 and the machines were delivered to defendants 2to7attheinstanceofdcfendantno.1underitssupervision and ..... reasoning, the defendant no. 1 can disown its responsibility. the plaintiff can not be made to suffer for no fault of its. since the privity of contract of supply of machines was with the defendant hence it is the defendant no. 1 who is liable to pay the amount due against the ..... rest with the individual enterpreneur and not on the defendant no. 1 who acted as agent of defendants 2 to 7. on behalf of defendant no.2, written statement was filed taking the objection that there was no privity of contract between the said defendant and the plaintiff. the liability to pay is that ..... executing it was the proper person. thereforee, the power of attorney was declared valid and effective both under section 85 of the indian evidence act and section 33 of the indian registration act. this decision of the supreme court, was followed by our high court in the case of national and grindlays bank ltd. vs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 1994 (HC)

The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ramchandra Raghunat ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1994(4)BomCR598; (1994)96BOMLR338

..... delivery of the suit machine was intended to be effected to third party as may be authorised by the defendants, it does not follow that privity of contract was not between the plaintiff and the defendants. no where it is stated in the correspondence exchanged between the parties that the defendants were entering the ..... one 3 roller pulverising bill with companies accessories. on 24th february, the plaintiff offered to sell to the defendants from ready stock the said pulverising mill, indian make 'master' brand complete with accessories from ready stock for sum of rs. 65,770/- per unit. the plaintiff addressed the said letter dated 24th february ..... depends upon facts of each case. proof of quantum of damages need not be rendered with mathematical certainty.14. section 44 of the sale of goods act, 1930 reads as under :-'when the seller is ready and willing to deliver the goods and requests the buyer to take delivery, and the buyer does ..... the trial court has rightly decreed the suit. i confirm the findings of the trial court.13. section 54(2) of the sale of goods act cannot be invoked where the property on the goods has not passed to the buyer. nevertheless price realised on re-sale can be taken into consideration ..... amount of damages claimed from the defendants on the footing of re-sale as such within the contemplation of section 54(2) of sale of goods act, 1930 but the re-sale price of goods of rs. 58,135/- can be taken into consideration as one of the relevant material for assessing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1935 (PC)

Abdul Rehman Mohamud Yusuf Vs. Sir Phiroze Cursetji Sethna

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1936Bom88; (1936)38BOMLR34

..... , that proviso would, in my opinion, clearly be a bar to the proof of such an agreement.20. the terms of section 63 of the indian contract act were relied upon on behalf of defendant no. 1 under which it is provided that:every promisee may dispense with or remit, wholly or in part, ..... of opinion, therefore, that the learned judge's finding that there was a release, express or implied, or a discharge under section 63 of the indian contract act of defendant no. 1 from his obligations under the covenants in the lease is not sustainable, even if evidence on the subject can be given in ..... s assignees, this might have been so, because by so doing they would be taken to have accepted the assignees as their tenants, and so privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant would have been extinguished, in accordance with the well-known doctrine laid down in walker's case; but it ..... view of proviso 4 to section 92 of the indian evidence act.10. then the second point which arises is as to whether the plaintiffs can sue defendant no. 1 on his covenants in the lease, whether, that is, the right by privity of contract has passed to them. i agree with the construction ..... evidence, having regard to proviso (4) to section 92 of the indian evidence act, inasmuch as it would amount, in my opinion, clearly to a subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify a contract, grant or disposition of property, where the contract, grant or disposition of the property was required by law to be in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1982 (HC)

Fatechand Murlidhar and Etc. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1985Bom71; ILR1985Bom1222

..... fall within the definition of the word 'consumer' as defined in s. 2(c) of the indian electricity act, 1910.5. the applicants resisted the suits and they contended that there is no privity of contract between the applicants and the first non-applicant and as such, they are not liable for the ..... his submission is that a person like the owner of a building may not escape his liability by making a submission that there is no privity of contract between him and the licensee supplying the electrical energy, that the legislature has thought it fit to alter the definition of the word 'consumer ..... my opinion, not included in the definition of the word 'consumer' in s. 2(c) of the act where the premises are in the occupation of his tenant. there is no privity of contract between the applicants and the maharashtra state electricity board and hence the applicants cannot be held liable as consumers. ..... prasad shah, : air1938pat15 where members of a joint family and the joint proprietors of the shop where charged under s. 44(c) of the indian electricity act for maliciously injuring the meter. the accused were acquitted. as against the order of acquital, an appeal was preferred and it was urged that the accused ..... electrical energy and, therefore, they would not fall within the first part of the definition of 'consumer' in s. 2(c) of the indian electricity act, 1910. in regard to the second part of the definition of the word 'consumer', shri moharir has submitted that the premises which were connected .....

Tag this Judgment!


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