Advanced Search Results

Shiva Jute Baling Limited Vs. Hindley and Company Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ContractArbitration

Acts : Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 73 and 74; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 33 and 35; Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 - Sections 7

Reported in : AIR1959SC1357; [1960]1SCR569

the arbitrators had purported to award such damages as could not be done under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Both these contentions were negatived by the learned Single Judge and he ordered the award to be filed … s. 33 in this case cannot and does not cover any part of the subject-matter of the reference. Section 35 in consequence can have no application and the award cannot be assailed as invalid on the ground that

Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs. Hotel Gold Regency and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 30, 33, 33(1), 33(3), 34, 34(1), 34(3), 35, 35(2), 51, 53A, 54, 55, 61, 61(1) and 62; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 188; Companies Act, 1956; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11

Reported in : AIR2009Delhi11; 151(2008)DLT210; LC2008(2)451; 2008(37)PTC587(Del)

Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the provisions of Section 188 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which defines the extent of an agent's authority. An agent having authority to carry on a business, has … rights after making deductions for its own expenses; (d) perform any other functions consistent with the provisions of section 35 of the said act. The submission is that these rights of administration do not include the right to

M/s N.n. Global Mercantile Private Limited Vs. M/s Indo Unique Flame L ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Arbitration

32 H. THE SCHEME OF THE STAMP ACT ................................................................................................. 53 I. HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED ANALYSED ........................................................................................ 59 J.THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - A SURVEY; DISSECTION OF GARWARE, VIDYA DROLIA AND N.N. GLOBAL ......................................................................................................................................... 64 K. THE STAMP ACT - … authoritatively settled by a Constitution Bench of five Judges of this Court: “Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to stamp duty under Section 3 read with the

The Inspector General of Registration, Pattinapakkam, Chennai and Anot ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Subject : Land Acquisition

69(1), section 35(1)(c), section 35(3)(c), Section 69(2), Section 68(2) €“ General Clauses Act, 1894 - Section 23 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 -Section 201, Section 202, Section 209, Section 203 to Section 210, Section 203, Section 204, Section 205, Section 206

Michael Raj vs Viswanathan Nadar

Court : Kerala

into a contract the parties should have been age of majority as required under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The decision in Mohori Bibee was referred and it has been held that the contracting party should be … THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 RSA NO. 35 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2006 IN A.S.139/01 OFSUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA FROM THE JUDGMENTAND DECREE DATED

Bhagyanathan Nadar vs Viswanathan Nadar

Court : Kerala

into a contract the parties should have been age of majority as required under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The decision in Mohori Bibee was referred and it has been held that the contracting party should be … THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 RSA NO. 35 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2006 IN A.S.139/01 OFSUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA FROM THE JUDGMENTAND DECREE DATED

Michael Raj vs Viswanathan Nadar (Died Lrgal Heirs Impleaded))

Court : Kerala

into a contract the parties should have been age of majority as required under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The decision in Mohori Bibee was referred and it has been held that the contracting party should be … THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 RSA NO. 35 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2006 IN A.S.139/01 OFSUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA FROM THE JUDGMENTAND DECREE DATED

R.Gangadharan Nadar vs Kochukunjan Nadar Pakyanathan Nadar

Court : Kerala

into a contract the parties should have been age of majority as required under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The decision in Mohori Bibee was referred and it has been held that the contracting party should be … THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 RSA NO. 35 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2006 IN A.S.139/01 OFSUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA FROM THE JUDGMENTAND DECREE DATED

Kochukunjan Nadar vs Viswanathan Nadar (Died)

Court : Kerala

into a contract the parties should have been age of majority as required under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The decision in Mohori Bibee was referred and it has been held that the contracting party should be … THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 RSA NO. 35 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2006 IN A.S.139/01 OFSUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA FROM THE JUDGMENTAND DECREE DATED

Kishnu Ghanshyam Vs. Maroti Mukunda

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1963)65BOMLR578; 1963MhLJ520

of failure of consideration or denial of execution with free consent (as defined in section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872) is pleaded by the executant of the document, although, he, admits execution,or that the document deals with property … decreed the claim for possession. Hence this second appeal.6. Before the learned Additional District Judge, several rulings under Section 35(3) of the Indian Registration Act were cited in order to persuade him to hold that the registering authorities