Sl No. | Title | Coram | Date of Judgement | Subject | HeadNotes | |
1 | KISHAN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. BHANWAR LAL. | Coram: MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ), MUKHERJEA, B.K., BOSE, VIVIAN, BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H., AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA | 12/05/1954 | Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872), s. Contract of agency --Agent's right of indemnity against principal-Whether hit by the notification prohibiting forward contracts of purchase and sale of bullion. | The respondent as principal entered into several forward contracts for the purchase and sale of bullion through the appellant's firm at Indore who worked as commission agents for the respondent. The transactions resulted in a loss and the a | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
2 | JASWANTRAI MANILAL AKHANEY Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY. | Coram: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. | 04/05/1956 | Criminal breach of trust-Conviction of a banker, Validity of--Government Promissory Notes pledged with a bank to cover overdraft -No overdraft by the pledgor-Managing Director acting on behalf of all-the Directors p | The appellant was the Managing Director of a bank and held a power of attorney to act on behalf of its Directors and authorising him to borrow money on behalf of the bank. Certain Government -Promissory Notes were | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
3 | KESHAVLAL LALLUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERSAND OTHERS Vs. LALBHAI TRIKUMLAL MILLS LTD. | Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. | 21/03/1958 | Contract-Extension of time for performance-Agreement of Parties-Requirements of Proof-Agreement, vague and uncertain Binding nature-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), SS. 29, 63. | The appellants entered into a contract with the respondent mills for the purchase of certain goods in which the time for delivery was fixed for the months of September and October, 1942. Before the expiry of the time fixed there was a st | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
4 | SALES TAX OFFICER, BANARAS & OTHERS Vs. KANHAIYA LAL MUKUNDLAL SARAF | Coram: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ), BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H., SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P., SUBBARAO, K., WANCHOO, K.N. | 23/09/1958 | Mistake of Law-Payment-Sales tax on forward transactions, subsequently held invalid--Claim for refund-Voluntary payment-Equitable considerations-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872),s. 72. | Under S. 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: " A person to whom money has been paid ... by mistake or under coercion must repay or return it ". The respondent, a registered firm, paid sales tax in respect of its forward transactions in pursuanc | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
5 | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI Vs. MESSRS. P. M. RATHOD & CO. | Coram: KAPUR, J.L. | 20/05/1959 | Income-tax-Place of accrual or receipt of Profits-Goods sold by a trader in a Part B State to customers in Part A or C States Goods sent by Value Payable Post or by rail-Post office, whether agent of seller or bailee of goods-Railway receipt | The respondents were manufacturers of perfumery and hair oils at Ratlam in Madhya Bharat which at the relevant time was a Part B State. They sent out agents who canvassed orders. The goods ordered were sent to the customers from Ratlam eit | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
6 | UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMAR SINGH | Coram: SUBBARAO, K. | 28/10/1959 | Contract-Implied contract of bailment--Goods entrusted to Pakistan Railway for delivery in India-Pakistan Railway handing over goods to Indian Railway-Loss of goods-Liability of Indian Railway to consignor-Limita | The respondent booked certain goods on September 4, 1947, with the N. W. Railway at Quebec in Pakistan to New Delhi. The wagon containing the goods was received at the Indian border station of Khem Karan on November 1, 1947, duly sealed a | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
7 | V. R. SEJBRAMANYAM Vs. B. THAYAPPA AND OTHERS. | Coram: SHAH, J.C. | 01/02/1961 | Building contract--Defective work--Additional work not covered by agreement--Compensation, when can be allowed--Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), s. 70. | The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent who was a building contractor entrusting him with the work of constructing a house and shops. The respondent undertook the work but before it could be completed disputes arose between | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
8 | M/S. MURLIDHAR CHIRANJILAL Vs. M/S. HARISHCHANDRA DWARKADAS AND ANOTHER | Coram: WANCHOO, K.N. | 29/03/1961 | Damages-Breach of contract.-Sale of goods-Measure of damages-Foreseeable consequence of breach-Knowledge of parties-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), s. 73. | The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent for the sale of certain canvas at Re. 1 per yard under which the delivery was to be made through railway receipt for Calcutta for Kanpur. The cost of transport from Kanpur to Calcutt | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
9 | STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. M/S. B. K. MONDAL AND SONS | Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., SARKAR, A.K., WANCHOO, K.N., GUPTA, K.C. DAS, AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA | 05/12/1961 | State Government-Enjoying benefit of non- gratuitous work-If bound to pay compensation- Absence of valid contract, if exonerates liability-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872)-s. 70 Government of India Act, 1935 (25 & 26 Geo.5 | By s. 70 of the Contract Act, "where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously; and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to m | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
10 | MITHOOLAL NAYAK Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA | Coram: DAS, S.K. | 15/01/1962 | Insurance-Life Policy-Obtained, by deliberate mis-statement and fraudulent suppression- Repudiation, by Company after two years-Whether proper-Refund of money paid as premium-Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) s. 45-Indian Contract Act, 1 | In 1942, one M sent a proposal for the insurance of his life. He was examined by Dr. D who submitted two reports, one with the proposal form and one confidential. The confidential report showed that M was anaemic, had a dilated heart | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
11 | KAPUR CHAND GODHA Vs. MIR NAWAB HIMAYATALIKHAN AZAMJAH | Coram: DAS, S.K. | 12/04/1962 | Contract--Province accepting performance from third person in full satisfaction of claim--If can sue promisor for balance--Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), ss. 41, 63, illustration (c). | In January 1937 one M & Co. sold and delivered jewellery valued at about 13 lakhs to the respondent Prince of Berar. The Prince acknowledged in writing the purchase of the jewellery and the price thereof and passed various acknowl | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
12 | UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/s. UDHO RAM & SONS | Coram: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR | 01/05/1962 | Railway-Loss of goods in transit-Negligence of railway servants-Liability-indian Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890), s. 72-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), s. 151. | Certain goods consigned by a merchant to the respondent. Some of the goods were lost in transit. The respondent sued the railway authorities for damages for the loss on ground that the loss 'Was incurred due to the negligence of the railway | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
13 | RAJA BAHADUR DHANRAJ GIRJI Vs. RAJA P. PARTHASARATHY RAYANIMVARU AND OTHERS. | Coram: | 04/09/1962 | Surety Bond-Executed in favour of Court--Compromise decree in the proceeding, if effects a discharge-Equitable rule Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), ss. 135, 126. | Although s. 135 of the Indian Contract Act does not in terms apply to a surety bond executed in favour of the court, there can be no doubt that the equitable rule underlying that section must apply to it. The reason for the said rule which e | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
14 | LADLI PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. KARNAL DISTILLERY CO., LTD., & ORS. | Coram: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ), GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., WANCHOO, K.N., GUPTA, K.C. DAS, SHAH, J.C. | 17/12/1962 | Company-Managing Director appointed on certain terms- Resolution removing Managing Director and appointing another-General Meeting -Subsequent resolution passed cancelling previous resolution-Suit by the Director-Fraud and und | The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate judge for a declaration that certain resolutions of the directors and the shareholders in a private limited company passed on March 3 and 28, 1946, and at the meetings of the Director | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
15 | FATEH CHAND Vs. BALKISHAN DAS | Coram: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ), GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., WANCHOO, K.N., GUPTA, K.C. DAS, SHAH, J.C. | 15/01/1963 | Contract-Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for-"the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty", if applicable, to all stipulation by way of penalty-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act IX of 1872), i. 74 --Code | By agreement dated March 21, 1949, the plaintiff contracted to sell leasehold rights in a piece of land and in the building constructed thereon to the defendant. The plaintiff received Rs. 25,000/- under the agreement and delivered | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgemen |
Comments
Post a Comment