Promisor - Judgment Search Results
Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Jan-14-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(SC)186; AIR1998SC966; 1998(46)BLJR1145; JT1998(1)SC523; (1998)IIMLJ94(SC); 1998(1)SCALE424; (1998)2SCC502; [1998]1SCR147; 1998(1)LC492(SC); (1998)2UPLBEC801
is defined as in Black's Law Dictionary as 'an estoppel which arises when there is a promise which promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of
Citi Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003SC4630; I(2004)BC211(SC); [2003]117CompCas554(SC); (2004)1CompLJ121(SC); 2004(2)CTC374; JT2003(10)SC597; 2003(8)SCALE364; (2004)1SCC12; [2003]47SCL582(SC); 2004(1)LC
a promise accepts performance of the promise from a third person, he cannot afterwards enforce it against the promisor.' 62. Effect of novation, rescission, and alteration of contract- If the parties to a contract agree to substitute
Ganga Retreat and Towers Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1117(SC); 2004(1)CTLJ104(SC); JT2003(10)SC232; 2003(10)SCALE898; (2003)12SCC91; 2004(2)LC933(SC)
an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.Where one person has promised to
18-section briefs on any result in this list
State of Kerala and anr. Vs. M.A. Mathai
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2007SC1537; 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)418; 2007(3)ALT41(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN18; 2007(2)CTC329; 2007(1)CTLJ236(SC); [2007(3)JCR27(SC)]; JT2007(8)SC365; (2007)4MLJ1119(SC); (200
the employer at the time agreed, 'unless, at the time of such acceptance, he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so'. Thus, it appears that under the Indian law, in spite of there
Mrf Ltd., Kottayam Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax a ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: JT2006(12)SC244; 2006(9)SCALE420; (2006)8SCC702; [2006]148STC225(SC); 2008[12]STR206
estoppel does not fly in the face of any statutory prohibition, absence of power and authority of the promisor and is otherwise not opposed to public interest, and also when equity in favour of the promise does
Rozan Mian Vs. Tahera Begum and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007SC2883; (2007)3CALLT108(SC); 2007(2)CTLJ303(SC); JT2007(10)SC134; (2007)6MLJ659(SC); (2007)148PLR310; 2007(10)SCALE20
an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. In the present case, by
Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD84(SC); 2006(2)ARBLR498(SC); (2007)1CALLT36(SC); (2007)3CompLJ213(SC); (2006)4MLJ456(SC); 2006(6)SCALE220; (2006)11SCC181; 2005(10)SCC353; MANU/SC/8177/2006
do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promise is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure.If, in case of a contract voidable on account of
Sharma Transport Rep. by D.P. Sharma Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002SC322; 2002(1)ALD66(SC); 2002(1)ARBLR231(SC); JT2001(Suppl2)SC1; 2001(8)SCALE417; (2002)2SCC188
is defined as in Black's Law Dictionary as 'an estoppel which arises when there is a promise which promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Oct-08-1987
Reported in: AIR1987SC2414; (1987)3CompLJ133(SC); JT1987(4)SC35; 1987(2)SCALE715; (1988)1SCC86; [1988]1SCR383
principle is too well known to bear repetition. It will be enough to make the following points. The promisor is bound because he led the promisee to commit himself to change the position. If the promisee has
K.S. Vidyanadam and Others Vs. Vairavan
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: AIR1997SC1751; 1997(1)CTC628; JT1997(2)SC375; 1997(2)MPLJ84; 1997(1)SCALE739; (1997)3SCC1
do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promise is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure.9. Article 54 of the Limitation Act prescribes three years
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free