Breach of policy condition

Even if there is a breach of policy condition, insurance company is liable to satisfy decree at first instance. It can later recover compensation amount from owner and/or driver of offending vehicle.
AIR 2011 Raj 104
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

No lease when document not signed

AIR 2011 NOC 337 (All)
WP (civil misc) 3707 of 1996
Ram Shankar Trivedi v. Commissioner
--------------------------------------
Sent from handheld device

Purchase in Open Auction is not 'consumer disputes'

I (2011) CPJ 449
I (2011) CPJ 526
(2009) 4 SCC 660 / II (CPJ) 1 SC

Pipeline Provisions - retroactivity

[1995] 2 All ER 714
[1970] 3 All ER 165

Sale of property in violation of Order 39 injunction

Sale is invalid in exercise of power u/s 151 CPC

See  AIR 1996 SC 135, AIR 2008 SC 901: (2008) 8 SCC 348

Settlement Agreement - binding nature

Double Dot Finance Services

2005 1 ARBLR 324 (Delhi)
upheld by DB in 2009

Public Policy and Contracts : Distinction between Coercion and Public Policy

D.S. Veer Ranji v. Ciba Speciality Chemicals (I) Limited, Bombay High Court, 2001. (2001) Indlaw Mum 454

Applicable law

2006 5 SCC 702 - law will apply which is in force at the time of the grant not which is at the time of the making of an application.

(1996) 5 SCC 268

[1995] 2 All ER 714

Penalty and Forfeiture Clause

There is no absolute right to forfeit entire amount without proof of total damages. When material on record shows that extent of damages is less, no one can be allowed to enrich himself by taking advantage of the forfeiture clause. When actual loss is ascertainable , entire forfeiture cannot be held valid. AIR 2011 AP 65.

Winding up - disputed debt

Dispute in relation to a debt means dispute between the petitioner and the respondent company. There is a privity of contract, and dispute between third party and the respondent company is not relevant.

Sunil Kothari v. Today Homes, (2011) 107 SCL 216 (Delhi)

Contracts and change in law

Contracts already entered into giving rise to accrued rights and interest are not disturbed by change in law (esp designated legislation)

See


Parag Milk Foods P Ltd v. Union of India, WP No. 2231/2011 (pending)
Parag Milk Foods P Ltd v. Union of India, 2007 Vol. 109 (3) Bom LR 1774 (para 10c, 8c)
Eurotex Industries v. Exports Limited, (2011) 113 (2) Bom LR 0834 (para 33)
Union of India v. Asian Food Industries, (2006) 13 SCC 542 (para 48)
Agri Trade India Services P Ltd v. Union of India, 132 (2006) DLT 500 (para 48)

Southern Petrochemical Industries Co Ltd v. Electricity Inspector, (2007) 5 SCC 447 (para 127)

Vishwant Kumar v. Madan Lal Sharma, (2004) 4 SCC 1 (para 4) - there is a difference between a mere right and what is right accrued or acquired.

Authorisation to sue

Suit filed by a person authorised by Chief Executive Officer does not constitute authority to sign and verify plaint in absence of resolution of board of directors. Letter of authority is not sufficient.
(2011) 163 Comp Cas 37 (SC)

Impossibility

The performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the promisor finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.

AIR 1954 SCR 310

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

Account of Profits

in case of breach of fiduciary duty


K.C. Skaria vs. The Govt. of State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 811


in case of breach of contract


Attorney General v. Blake, 2004 All ER (HL)

Frustration of contract:Onus of proof

Only if the party pleads frustration, will the other party get to plead and prove that frustration was due the the breaching party's neglect, default or self-induced. Sri Amuruvi v. KR Sabhapathi, AIR 1962 Mad 132; Dinanath v. Premchand, MANU/MP/0120/1956; VL Narasu v. PSV Iyer, AIR 1953 Mad 300

Unilateral mistake - misunderstanding scope of contractual obligations

Dhulipudi Namayya v. Union of India, AIR 1958 AP 533 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pioneer Builders, 1999 (3) ALD 140 which relied on Hillas & Co. v. Arcos Ltd., (1932) All ER 494.  Pioneer in Appeal  (AIR 2007 SC 113) reversed on other grounds. This was untouched.

Termination of contract for loss of confidence

Percept Talent Management Pvt. vs Yuvraj Singh, 2008 (2) ARBLR 49 Bom, 2008 (2) BomCR 654: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1028780/. 

" An agreement of this kind is founded on trust, confidence and the basic principles which underlie a fiduciary relationship. The agreement is an instrument to provide an exposure to the public persona of the sportsperson. The public image of the sportsman is what the agreement is inextricably involved in generating. And the agent who represents the sportsman, negotiates on his behalf and deals as his sole and exclusive representative is a vital link in the creation of a public image. Such agreements are founded on trust and confidence. Where trust and confidence have ceased to exist in a relationship, the relationship cannot survive. The law will not enforce and compel parties to observe a relationship such as this where the foundation upon which it exists disappears. For the law does not enforce the husk where the substance does not survive. The aggrieved party is left to seek its remedies for breach in damages." 

Writ Petition: Money Claim / Refund as consequential relief

"We are of the opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax.

We, therefore, hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of  going to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction."

2001 (2) SCC 549 relied in ABL v. ECGC, 2004 (3) SCC 553

Legal heirs can invoke arbitration clause

Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel, (2008) 13 SCC 667

Guarantor liability is co extensive

2009 9 SCC 478