Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1961

The State Of Bihar vs Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti ... on 30 July, 2018

20. It will thus be seen that Section 34(5) does not deal with the power of the Court to condone the non-compliance thereof. It is imperative to note that the provision is procedural, the object behind which is to dispose of applications under Section 34 expeditiously. One must 1 Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, (1962) 2 SCR 880, para 16. 19 remember the wise observation contained in Kailash (supra), where the object of such a provision is only to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 37 - Cited by 84 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors. vs N.K. (P) Ltd. And Ors. on 30 October, 1970

(30) We have, therefore, to consider whether in the circumstances of the present case, such authorisation can be inferred as it was inferred by the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar v. M/s.Karam Chand Thapar Brothers Ltd. and in Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India (31) The offer made by the Company was apparently studied by the Railway Board. For, on 25th May 1968 Shri P. C. Oak, Deputy Director, Railway Board, required the Company to state if the offer was to be deemed to have been addressed to the President. On 3rd June 1968, another officer Shri Parasuraman, Joint Director for Secretary, Railway Board, called for further clarification from the Company. On 22-6-1968, Shri P. C. Oak wrote to the Company as follows : "THEBoard desire that the period of validity of your offer may please be extended."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - H R Khanna - Full Document

P. Saibaba Rao S/O Amruth Rao vs Dr. Dugyala Srinivasa Rao S/O Swami Rao on 13 August, 2007

A contract entered into by the Governor of a Province must satisfy three conditions, namely, (i) it must be expressed to be made by the Governor; (ii) it must be executed; and (iii) the execution should be by such persons and in such manner as the Governor might direct or authorise. These three conditions are required to be fulfilled. This position was reiterated by this Court again in Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jitendra Nath Mukherjee vs Commissioners Of Baduria Municipality ... on 7 October, 1966

30. Laying down apart of the consequences of Sub-section (2)'s breach, there is a far more important principle behind such law; the principle of public interest. Take Section 175, Sub-section (3), of the Government of India Act, 1935. No consequences are laid down there for its non-compliance. Still its provision was considered as mandatory on the paramount consideration of public interest, the principle being that the State should not be liable for unauthorised contracts: Bbikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, , to cite but one authority only.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ram Ratan Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 18 October, 1973

In AIR 1964 SC 1714 at p. 1722 it was clearly held that Ralliaram's case does not depart from the principles laid down in Bhikral Jaipuria v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113 and that a contract by correspondence, which is not expressed to be made by the Governor-General and which is not signed by a person authorised by him, cannot meet the requirements of Section 175(3).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs P.K. Jain on 28 January, 1981

7. Point No. 2. His second contention is that the plaintiff has totally failed to prove the rate of the bricks prevalent at the time when breach of the contract was committed and in absence of the same the suit must fail. I think the contention is sound. It is a settled law that for a contract to supply goods of a particular sort, which at the time of the breach can be obtained in a market, the measure of damage is the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of breach: See Jamal v. Moolla Dawood's Sons Ltd., 43 Ind App 6: (AIR 1915 PC 48); Jivraj v. Chain Karan, AIR 1944 Nag 279; Dominion of India v. Bhikhraj Jaipuria, AIR 1957 Pat 586 at p. 604 paras 39 and 40; Bhikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113 para 36; Murlidhar Chiranji Lal v. Harish Chandra Dwarkadas, AIR 1962 SC 366; Matanhella Bros.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next