vehicle not transferred on the date of accident, no insurable interest

Complainant is not entitled to insured sum because as on the date of accident the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant had any insurable interest in the vehicle. In terms of S 157 of the MV Act, the deemed transfer of insurance vehicle is limited to  third party risk and not to others.  NIA v. Chandrakant Bhujang Rao, II (2010) CPJ 170 (NC) (relying on Supreme Court  1996 (1) SCC 221.)

Change in Director / Liability of the Company

A company must take steps to see that it is aware of all the changes that it has to notify to the Registrar, and if it fails to do so, then the company becomes liable for default. [Public Prosecutor v. Coimbatore National Bank Ltd. (1943) 13 Comp Cas 50 (Mad); see also Trichinopally Mills Ltd, In re (1941) 11 Com Cas 4 (Mad)].

Section 303 of the Companies Act, 1956

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/141028/

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

Contempt for breach for permanent injunction and Rule 2A of Order 39, CPC

MCGM v, Bhikanlal Nanakchand Sharma, (2007) Vol. 109 (1) Bom. L.R. 0430

Cheriyan Mathew v. Kuriakose Peter, (2004) 13 SCC 637

 

 

Rule 2A of Order 39 is not available for breach of permanent injunction. (See also AIR 1987 Guj 160); (2002) 3 BCR 161.

 

Also doubtful if Rule 2A could apply to breach of undertaking given to the court.

 

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

Court will not interfere so long as arbitrators view is a possible one and it remains within the terms of contract

NHAI v. Unitech-NCC Joint Venture, MANU/DE/2176/2010; McDermott International v. Burns Standard Co. Ltd, (2006) 11 SCC 181