2000 4 BomCR 740
1994 4 BomCR 538
In the same matter, an advocate cannot combine the roles of a counsel and power of attorney holder.
contact for clarification or assistance at talha (at) talha (dot) in
Search The Civil Litigator
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Bank guarantee
Separate contract and necessity of bank to be made a party:
74 comp cas 192
1990 (1) CLT 200
(1996) 1 scc 735
AIR 1996 SC 2268
74 comp cas 192
1990 (1) CLT 200
(1996) 1 scc 735
AIR 1996 SC 2268
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Limitation condonation
Maximum period prescribed under section 125 of the Electricity Act is 120 days from date of communication of order of tribunal. It cannot be extended by section 5 of the Limitation Act.
AIR 2010 SC 2061
AIR 2010 SC 2061
courts cannot rewrite the contract
Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, APSIDC Ltd, v. R.Varaprasad reported in 2003 (11) SCC 572 "it is not for the courts to rewrite the terms of the contract, which were clear to the contracting parties" and in Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. v. Jain Studios Ltd. reported in 2006 (2) SCC 628 on the issue of rewriting of contracts by the Courts as also interpretation of a severance clause in an agreement.
Fraud on Court, in pari delicto
Satpal Singh Arora v. Santdas Prabhudas Malkani, (1970) 73 BLR 777 (relevant page 789 of the judgement) which, inter alia, holds that if in a Suit it is established that both the parties intended to play fraud upon law to circumvent its provisions, the maxim in pari delicto, potior est condition defendatis, i.e. where both parties are equally at fault, the position of the Defendant is stronger, will apply.
S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 1994 (1) SCC 1 (relevant paragraphs 5 & 6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a Plaintiff's case is based on fraud he can be thrown out at any stage.
fresh leave and license
Alban Joseph Gonsalves v. Rallis India Ltd, 2004 (1) ALL MR 702 (Relevant paragraphs 4 & 9) which holds that entering into a fresh leave and license agreement, amounts to waiver and a deemed surrender of the prior agreement and the licensee cannot claim any right thereunder.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Limitation: Power to condone delay
1. AIR 1962 SC 1217 Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad versus Sardarni Vidyawati and Another wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Board of Revenue acts as a quasi judicial body under Section 56 (2) Indian Stamp Act.2. 1985 3 Supreme Court Cases 590 Sakuru versus Tanaji wherein the SupremeCourt has held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply only to proceedings in 'courts' and not to appeals or applications before bodies other than courts such as qu asi judicialtribunals or executive authorities.3. 2003 8 Supreme Court Cases 431 Prakash H. Jani versus Marie Fernandes (Ms) wherein the Supreme Court has referred to Sakuru v. Tanaji .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)