Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Citi Bank N.A vs Standard Chartered Bank & Others on 8 October, 2003

Cure Surgicals vs Darshika Orthocare on 15 March, 2022

16. Further, it is stated that as per section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 there should have been novation of contract between the parties however, due to non­disclosure of change in constitution to the defendant, the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on Meenakshi Achi and Ors. vs. P.S.M Subramanian Chettiar and Ors. AIR 1957 Mad 8 and Citi Bank N.A. and Ors. vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4630. The argument is again devoid of any substance as the present suit has been filed by the registered partnership firm through one of its partners. Sh. Kapil Malhotra is still a partner in the firm, however, as the firm was registered, the firm chose to file the present suit through Ms. Ambika Malhotra.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Sajedha vs The Sub Registrar on 23 June, 2022

In this context, we may refer to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that contract which need not be performed. By that provision, any novation, rescission and alteration of a contract can be made only bilaterally. A deed of cancellation will amount to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, any rescission must be only bilaterally. See City Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Others, (2004) 2 CTC 374 (SC) : 2004 (1) SCC 12.?
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

M/S.Latif Estate Line India Ltd vs Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal on 11 February, 2011

In this context, we may refer to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that contract which need not be performed. By that provision, any novation, rescission and alteration of a contract can be made only bilaterally. A deed of cancellation will amount to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, any rescission must be only bilaterally. See City Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Others, (2004) 2 CTC 374 (SC) : 2004 (1) SCC 12.
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 226 - Full Document

T.C.Subramanian vs The Sub Registrar on 10 January, 2017

In this context, we may refer to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that contract which need not be performed. By that provision, any novation, rescission and alteration of a contract can be made only bilaterally. A deed of cancellation will amount to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, any rescission must be only bilaterally. See City Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Others, (2004) 2 CTC 374 (SC) : 2004 (1) SCC 12.
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

D.Sachidhanandam vs The Registrar/Inspector General on 16 March, 2022

In this context, we may refer to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that contract which need not be performed. By that provision, any novation, rescission and alteration of a contract can be made only bilaterally. A deed of cancellation will amount to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, any rescission must be only bilaterally. See City Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Others, (2004) 2 CTC 374 (SC) : 2004 (1) SCC 12.µ
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

Bhagwati Foundation And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Mcd And Ors. on 31 October, 2006

In this behalf, reliance has been placed on City Bank NA v. Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. to urge that novation, decision and alteration of contract can be done only with the agreement of both parties and not unilaternally under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. Both parties have to agree to substitute the original contract with a contract or resent or alter the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 174 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Kumar Gowardhan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 May, 2024

9. The settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para-28 of Sime Darby Engineering SDN. BHD. Vs. Engineers India Limited (supra) and para -47 of Citi Bank N.A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank (supra), as already referred to above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the law is well settled that a policy cannot change the contractual clause more particularly when the policy decision has come into effect, subsequent to the contract and any novation, rescission or alteration of a contract can only be done with the agreement of both the parties to a contract and cannot be done unilaterally.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Indian Railway Catering & Tourism ... vs M/S Deepak & Co on 26 February, 2021

35. In the instant case, the Arbitrator has dealt with the contention of the petitioner that it could make any changes in the contract as and when required and also the question whether it could be done unilaterally or not. He referred Section 62 of the Act and the cases of Citi Bank N. A. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank, 2004 (1) SCC 12, Nalini Singh Associates VS. Prime Time IP Media Services Ltd, 153 (2008) DLT 174, H. B. Basavaraj (dead) by Lrs and another Vs. Canara Bank & Anr, 2010 (12) SCC 458.
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next