Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Gulabchand Gambhirmal vs Kudilal Govindram And Anr. on 24 November, 1958

Smt. Nathi Bai vs Suraj Narain And Ors. on 26 November, 1965

In support of this submission, learned counsel placed strong reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Gulabchand Gambhirmal v. Kudilal Govindram, AIR 1952 Madh B 149 (FB). The facts of this case were briefly these. The petitioner there had preferred an appeal to a Special Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court from the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of that Court. That appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was incompetent for the reason that under Section 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act (No. 8 of 1949) no appeal lay from a decree or an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court before the coming into force of the High Court Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Manharlal Manilal Shah vs Official Liquidator on 25 March, 1968

We did not consider the merits of the appeal but rejected it on the ground that no appeal lay at the instance of the applicant. The order passed by us dismissing there appeal on this ground can in no sense be regarded as an order adopting or affirming the decision appealed from. When we took the view that the appeal did not lie at the instance of the applicant, it is difficult to see how it can be said that in rejecting the appeal we adopted or affirmed the decision of the company judge. This view which we rate taking is supported by a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Bharat High court in Gulabchand v. Kudilal Govindram (A.I.R. 1952 M.B. 149, 150 (F.B.)). The appeal in that case was dismissed by the court on the ground that no appeal lay under section 25 of the High court of Judicature Act, 1949, and the question arose whether the order dismissing the appeal on that ground was a final order affirming the decision of the court immediately below. Dixit J., delivering the main judgment, held that the order could not be regarded as an order affirming the decision of the court immediately below and the reasons he gave were :
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Mukunda Das Nandy And Ors. vs Bidhan Chandra Roy And Ors. on 1 July, 1959

That there are no words here, excluding or abrogating the normal rule, has to be conceded, but, for such purpose, express words are not absolutely necessary and it may well be achieved by necessary implication or intendment (Vide Gulabchand v. Kudilal, . Mr. Gupta contends that necessary intendment or implication postulates that no other conclusion is possible. We do not think, however, that that extreme view is justified and, in our opinion, as we have said already in our judgment in First Appeal No. 9 of 1959 (Cal), the test of necessary implication may well be otherwise satisfied also, that is, where the implication is "one which, under all circumstances, is compelled by a reasonable view of the statute and the contrary of which would be improbable or absurd" or, in other words, where the implication "is so strong in its probability that the contrary thereof cannot be reasonably supposed". Even, however accepting Mr. Gupta's extreme contention on the point, we do not think that the position would be different in the present case. This is sufficiently clear from the discussion in the extract or extracts, quoted above from our judgment in F. A. No. 9 of 1959 (Cal), and we need not say more to reject Mr. Gupta's submission under this head.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ratanlal Son Of Pannalalji vs Firm Mangilal Mathuralal Of Indore And ... on 26 November, 1962

28. Lastly we may mention a Full Bench case of this Court decided by Dixit, J. (as he then was), Khan, J. and Shrivastava J. in Gulabchand Gambhirmal v. Kudilal Govindram, 1960 MPLJ 334 : (AIR 1959 Madh Pra 151), where the question was whether a contract though in itself lawful would be rendered void, if the fulfilment of the same involved violation of a law or it offended against public policy. The conduct of some partners of the managing agency of a Cotton Mill was the subject-matter of criticism and controversy with the result that the Board of Directors of the Mill appointed an enquiry committee consisting of three persons to enquire into the charges levelled against Govindram Sakserta. The plaintiff was one of the members of the Committee. While the proceedings of the enquiry committee Were still going on, the plaintiff, namely, Gulabchand Gambhirmal entered into an agreement with Govindram Sek-saria, whereby the latter agreed to sell his 2 1/2 annas share in the managing agency to the plaintiff thereby making the plaintiff a partner with him. Govindram Seksaria failed to implement the agreement and, therefore, the plaintiff Gulab-chand Gambhirmal filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale against the heirs of Govindram Seksaria. In defence, the agreement was attacked as being void and unenforceable; firstly on account of the fact that there was a conflict between the interest and duty of the plaintiff and the share offered was in the nature of a bribe. Therefore, the question arose whether the agreement was opposed to public policy and hence unenforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act. it is to be noted that the agreement by itself was perfectly legal and Innocent, but the carrying out of the same involved a violation of the law or public policy, inasmuch as it amounted to offering a bribe for a favourable report in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, although the agreement itself was not rendered unlawful or illegal, its carrying out involved a violation of public policy. The object of the agreement was considered to be opposed to public policy. It was for that reason that the Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court, as also the Full Bench of this Court held that the agreement being rendered unlawful under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act could not be enforced in a Court of law and, therefore, specific performance of the contract of sale of shares was refused. We may only observe that the reasoning of the learned Judges constituting the Full Bench would accordingly assist us in OUT conclusion that if unlawfulness or illegality is even indirectly connected with a perfectly innocent and legal contract, the contract is rendered unlawful or illegal and the Court would refuse to enforce such a contract, having in view the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, as giving effect to a perfectly legal contract, which is tainted by a collateral illegality or an earlier illegality would render the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act nugatory. This result the Court has to avoid in all eventualities.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Daya Chand Uttam Prakash Jain And Anr. vs Santosh Devi Sharma on 1 March, 1997

12.4.In jiwibai v. Rarnkunwar Shriniwas Murarka Agarwala, Air (34) 1947 Nagpur 17, a Full Bench of the Nagpur High Court took the view that the express authority given to the agent to 'compromise' under Mukhtarnama included the power to refer the suit to arbitration because the deed set out in separate phrases the two aspects of 'compromise' which the single English word normally connoted. It may further be added that document embodying a business agreement should be construed formally and broadly and there must in such documents imply a term which will give such business efficacy to the transaction as must have been intended by the parties. One cannot add to a contract an implied term inconsistent with or which contradicts express terms of the contract. But in a suitable case one may imply a term if it is necessary to give it a business efficacy (see Gulabchand Gambhirmal v. Kudilal Govindram & Anr., [Full Bench], Cholldhri Gulabchand Jain v. Bhama, ).
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 32 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs Vardhman Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on 21 August, 2006

Thakkar Hemraj Keshavji v. Shah Haridas Jethabhai ; Navnit Lal and Co. v. Kishan Chand and Co. ; State of W.B. v. Narendra Nath Roy ; Gulabchand Gambhirlal v. Kudilal Govindram ; Soundararajan and Co. Ltd. v. Kpat Annamali Nadar ; Ram Laljagan Nath v. Punjab State ; Abdul Kader Laskar v. State of W.B. ; Unidroit Principles, Article 4.4. All terms in the contract must be given effect rather than deprive some of them of the effect.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 11 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1