Advanced Search Results

S.A. Zahir Hussain and Another Vs. T. Somasundaram

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

petition if any is closed. Civil Procedure Code- Section 100 - Transfer of Property Act Section 53(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 2(b),(e),(h) Specific Relief Act Section 5, Section 6, Section 22 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 39 Rule

George P. Varghese and anr. Vs. G. Daniel and ors.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149(2) and 168; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 25

Reported in : 1998ACJ585; AIR1998Ker120

Motor Vehicles - compensation - Sections 149 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 25 of Contract Act, 1872 - whether insurance company liable to pay compensation - policy taken after accident by suppression of material fact

United Breweries (Holdings) Limited and Another Vs. Bangalore Internat ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

14. He would also draw the attention of the Court to Sections 59, 60 and 61 of the Contract Act, 1872 to contend that Creditor - Kingfisher Airlines had not intimated the plaintiff that partial amount paid by it … and ANOTHER vs FIRM SADHU SINGH THAKOR SINGH reported AIR 1962 PUNJAB 168 it has been held that such course is left open to the … Of The Suit As A Condition Precedent For Grant Of Leave To Defend. This Petition Is Filed Under Section 115 Of CPC, Against The Order Dated 30.03.2013 Passed In O.S.No. 8306/2012 On The File Of The Xxvii-

Siddhivinayak Realties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V. Hotels Limited and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

in default could not and did not arise. It is submitted that under Section 39 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, there must be not only categorical refusal to perform by the promisor of his promise in entering but … neither was responsible,." In Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Limited v. Imperial Smelting Corporation Ltd. [1942] A.C. 154 at 168), Viscount Maugham observed that the "doctrine of frustration is only a special case of the discharge of contract

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

Court : Kerala

Subject : BankingCompany

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Section 529A; ;Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 - Sections 7 and 34; ;Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 2, 128, 134, 140 and 141; ;Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958; ;Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938; ;Insolvency Act - Section 45; ;Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 - Sections 5 and 29; ;Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rules 164 and 179

a guarantor, cannot be held liable. Reliance was placed on Sections 128, 134 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in support of the said contention. The learned Counsel for the appellant also referred to and relied on … surety.Phillipps v. Solomon 42 Gre. 192 (quoted by Brandt op. cit para 168). But if the contract under which the debt became due is not … giving credit to the amount received from the Official Liquidator. The Corporation thereafter issued Ext.P6 demand notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 demanding payment of the sum of Rs. 33,45,780.20

Ramesh Chand Vs. Pollagoni Venkanna and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 145 and 166; Insurance Act, 1938 - Sections 64VB, 64VB(2) and 64VB(3); Indian Contract Act, 1872

Reported in : 2007ACJ2198; 2007(1)ALD177; 2006(6)ALT806

conditions of the contract. For all purposes, policy is a contract under the general law i.e., the Indian Contract Act, 1872.31. If we put it in a different way, the policy, since possessing all trappings of contract, is … O.Ps., and alleging that on 7-10-1994 he sent a sum of Rs. 168/- (Rupees one hundred and sixty eight only) by way of cheque under … Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for brevity 'the Tribunal No. 1') allowing O.P. No. 250 of 1995, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the M.V. Act'), and awarding a sum of Rs.

Sabava Yellappa Vs. Yamanappa Sabu

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Reported in : AIR1933Bom209; (1933)35BOMLR345

of Property Act, for an unlawful object or consideration within the meaning of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act lays down that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful … Ningareddi v. Lakshmawa I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 163: 3 Bom. L.R. 647 where it was observed as follows (p. 168) :-Though such an agreement is not supported by consideration, yet as an agreement to compensate for past services

Manjunath v. Hebbar vs.tarina Sen & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

said Agreement personally and not the the successors and assignees of the parties. Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that promises bind the representatives of the promisors in case of the death of such promisors before … * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d July, 2018 ARB.P. 168/2017 MANJUNATH V. HEBBAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Shambo Nandy, Adv. versus TARINA SEN & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sanjay

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harapriya Nayak and ors.

Court : Orissa

Subject : Motor VehiclesInsurance

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110, 110A, 146 to 149 and 168 to 173; Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960; Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) (Amendment) Rules, 1989

Reported in : 1994(I)OLR88

State Financial Corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding … responsibility to do so is a statutory obligation as required Under Section 110-B of the old Act and Section 168 (1) of the new Act. Awards are being made which are fanciful and detached from realities. Though it

Ankit Khare Vs. the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Education

So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on illustration to Section 32 of the Contract Act, 1872 is concerned, the same is misconceived as the Dowry Prohibition Act was enacted much later i.e.in the year … whereas, the Indian Contract Act was enacted in the year 1872. Question No.89 pertains to M.P.Land Revenue Code. Section 168(1) of the M.P.Land Revenue Code provides that except in cases provided for in sub-section 2 no bhumiswami shall