Jivaji Jedeja and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....v. cheong yue steamship company, [1926] a.c. 502 and heyman v. darwin ltd., [1942] 1 all e.r. 337, referred to. tolaram nathmull v. birla jute manufacturing co. ltd., i.l.r. (1948) 2 cal. 171, distinguished. held, further, that it was well settled that the parties to an original contract could by mutual agreement enter into a new contract in substitution of the old one. payana reena saminathan v. pana lana palaniappa, [19i4] a.c. 618: norris v. baron and company, [1918] a.c. i and british russian gazette and trade outlook ltd. v. associated newspaper, limited, [1933] 2 k.b. 616, referred to. per sarkar, j.-the award was valid and could not be set aside as the third settlement neither expressly put an end to the arbitration clause nor, considered as an accord and satisfaction, did it have that effect. an accord and satisfaction is only a method of discharge of a contract. it does not annihilate the contract but only makes the obligation arising from it unenforceable. an arbitration clause stands apart from the rest of the contract in which it is contained. it does not impose on the one party an obligation in favour of the other; it only embodies an agreement that if any dispute.....order1. the special leave petitions arc allowed to be withdrawn since the petitioners would be making a fresh application for bail to the hish court, in view of the fact that the high court proceeded on erroneous basis that the order granting or refusing bail must be a speaking order the petitioners are given time to surrender by 4 p.m on 24 10 86 unless in the meanwhille, the high court in the exercise of its discretion, thinks it fit to grant bail or extend the time for surrender

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The Special Leave Petitions arc allowed to be withdrawn since the petitioners would be making a fresh application for bail to the Hish Court, in view of the fact that the High Court proceeded on erroneous basis that the order granting or refusing bail must be a speaking order The petitioners are given time to surrender by 4 p.m on 24 10 86 unless in the meanwhille, the High Court in the exercise of its discretion, thinks it fit to grant bail or extend the time for surrender