Comment : In this case an unregistered firm sued to recover possession from a tenant (erstwhile insofar as term of tenancy had ceased) – the suit was resisted on the ground that since the basis of suit lied in contract entered into with tenant – it is hit by the mischief of S.69 and an […]Read More Eviction of Tenant by unregistered partnership firm !
Comment : In this case a person sold X (leasehold warehouse) to his friend. Later he cried misrepresentation and sought to steer clear of the transaction. Later at the stage of second appeal he took the plea of frustration as he himself was a lessee of the land and could not have sold – the court […]Read More Cancellation of Transaction on account of Frustration !
Supreme Court of India Bhajan Singh Hardit Singh And Co., … vs Karson Agency (India) And Ors. on 31 March, 1967 Author: Tatachari Bench: K Hegde, H Khanna, T Tatachari JUDGMENT Tatachari, J. (1) This letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Punjab originally came up for […]Read More Limitation period for breach of contract.
Supreme Court of India Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills & Ors vs Tata Air-Craft Ltd on 28 October, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1986, 1970 SCR (3) 127 Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: SHREE HANUMAN COTTON MILLS & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: TATA AIR-CRAFT LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/10/1969 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. SHELAT, J.M. DUA, […]Read More Contract–Money deposited as earnest money–Breach committed by buyer-Right of seller to forfeit-Principles. Contract Act (9 of 1872), ss. 64 and 74-Scope of.
The preposition before Court is suppose A gets property from B under an agreement to sell, A has got possession and is ready to fulfil his obligations to fulfill the transaction, but B is not similarly enthusiastic about it. The agreement to sell is not registered – in such a situation A by virtue of […]Read More Whether possession can be protected via theory of part performance even after time limit for specific performance has expired ? HELD YES
Comment : In this case the court held a bank liable for criminal breach of trust where it misappropriated the govt. securities pledged with it by the pledgor to secure overdraft – in actuality no overdraft was procured. The defence of S.79 of the bank was negatived for the simple reason that bank could not be […]Read More Liability of Pledgee for Criminal Breach of Trust
Supreme Court of India State Bank Of India & Anr vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd on 6 July, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, P Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2801 of 2006 PETITIONER: State Bank of India & Anr. RESPONDENT: Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/07/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]Read More Supreme Court on S.92 Evidence Act – Doctrine of Conclusivity of Documentary Evidence.
Supreme Court of India Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul … vs Pratima Maity And Ors. on 9 September, 2003 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 4351, 2004 (1) JCR 30 SC Author: A Pasayat Bench: D Raju, A Pasayat JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge […]Read More Burden of Proving good faith of transactions hit by undue influence
Comment : In this case the plaintiff sought specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell. defendant pleaded that the same was voidable on the ground of fraud and undue influence and was not meant to be acted upon and only meant as a security for repayment of debt. Court held mischief of […]Read More Specific Performance of an Agreement vitiated by Fraud/Undue Influence.
Supreme Court of India Alka Bose vs Parmatma Devi & Ors. on 17 December, 2008 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6197 OF 2000 ALKA BOSE Appellant (s) VERSUS PARMATMA DEVI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 17/12/2008 This Appeal was called on for judgment […]Read More Specific Performance of an Agreement executed by Vendor alone