Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing K.R. Chitguppi And Co. vs Vinayak Kashinath Khadilkar on 9 March, 1920

The Official Assignee vs Madholal Sindhu on 21 August, 1946

In Chitguppi & Co. v. Vinayak Kashinath (1920) I.L.R. 45 Bom. 157 : s.c. 22 Bom. L.R. 659 our High Court held that under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act any variation made without the surety's consent in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor discharged the surety as to transactions subject to the variation although the surety had agreed to such variation. It was held that such an agreement was inconsistent with the express provisions of Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 133 did not provide for any contract to the contrary.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Mahendrakumar Chandulal vs Central Bank Of India on 30 March, 1983

In Chitguppi and Co. v. Vinayak Kashinath (1920) ILR 45 Bom 15 7 our High Court held that under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act any variation made without the surety's consent in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor discharged the surety as to transactions subject to the variation although the surety had agreed to such variation. It was held that such an agreement was inconsistent with the express provisions of Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 133 did not provide for any contract to the contrary,
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

All India Power Engineer Federation & ... vs Sasan Power Ltd. & Ors. Etc on 8 December, 2016

“The Indian Contract Act of 1872 applies to all contracts in India and with regard to a pawn is a codification of the English common law. Speaking of the common law right to sell Mr. Justice Story in his commentaries on the Law of Bailments, eighth edition, says at p. 262:— “Another right resulting, by the common law, from the contract of pledge is the right to sell the pledge, where there has been a default in the pledge in complying with his engagement, but a sale before default would be a conversion. Such a right does not divest the general property of the pawner but still leave in him (as we shall presently see) a right of redemption.” And at p. 263:— “The common law of England, existing in the time of Glanville, seems to have required a judicial process to justify the sale, or at least to destroy the right of redemption. But the law as at present established leaves an election to the pawnee. He may file a bill in equity against the pawner for a foreclosure and sale; or, he may proceed to sell ex mero motu, upon giving notice of his intention to the pledger.” The terms of an instrument of pledge, such as there is in this case, giving an unqualified power of sale, are inconsistent with the provisions of s. 176 of the Indian Contract Act, and, therefore, by virtue of s. 1 of that Act must give place to the express provisions of the Act: See Chitguppi & Co. v. Vinaya Kashinath [(1920) 45 Bom. 157, s.c.22 Bom L.R. 959] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 57 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves ... vs Sk Engineering Company Karam Chand ... on 22 May, 2024

„Another right resulting, by the common law, from the contract of pledge is the right to sell the pledge, where there has been a default in the pledge in complying with his engagement, but a sale before default would be a conversion. Such a right does not divest the general property of the pawner but still leave in him (as we shall presently see) a right of redemption.‟ „The common law of England, existing in the time of Glanville, seems to have required a judicial process to justify the sale, or at least to destroy the right of redemption. But the law as at present established leaves an election to the pawnee. He may file a bill in equity against the pawner for a foreclosure and sale; or, he may proceed to sell ex mero motu, upon giving notice of his intention to the pledger.‟ The terms of an instrument of pledge, such as there is in this case, giving an unqualified power of sale, are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 176 of the Contract Act, and, therefore, by virtue of Section 1 of that Act must give place to the express provisions of the Act (see K.R. Chitguppi & Co. v. Vinayak Kashinath Khadilkar [K.R. Chitguppi & Co. v. Vinayak Kashinath Khadilkar, ILR (1921) 45 Bom 157 : (1920) 22 Bom LR 659 : 1920 SCC OnLine Bom 78] ).
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves ... vs Sk Engineering Company Karam Chand ... on 22 May, 2024

„Another right resulting, by the common law, from the contract of pledge is the right to sell the pledge, where there has been a default in the pledge in complying with his engagement, but a sale before default would be a conversion. Such a right does not divest the general property of the pawner but still leave in him (as we shall presently see) a right of redemption.‟ „The common law of England, existing in the time of Glanville, seems to have required a judicial process to justify the sale, or at least to destroy the right of redemption. But the law as at present established leaves an election to the pawnee. He may file a bill in equity against the pawner for a foreclosure and sale; or, he may proceed to sell ex mero motu, upon giving notice of his intention to the pledger.‟ The terms of an instrument of pledge, such as there is in this case, giving an unqualified power of sale, are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 176 of the Contract Act, and, therefore, by virtue of Section 1 of that Act must give place to the express provisions of the Act (see K.R. Chitguppi & Co. v. Vinayak Kashinath Khadilkar [K.R. Chitguppi & Co. v. Vinayak Kashinath Khadilkar, ILR (1921) 45 Bom 157 : (1920) 22 Bom LR 659 : 1920 SCC OnLine Bom 78] ).
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Bank Of India vs Aiyars Advertising And Marketing Pvt. ... on 25 November, 1993

In support of these submissions reliance is placed upon the authorities in the cases of Central Bank of India v. Ali Mohammad and anr., reported in 1993 Mah.L.J. Pg. 1092; K.R., Chitguppi & Co. v. Vinayak K. Khadilkar, reported in 22 B.L.R. Pg. 659; (Union of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Dept. of Food), New Delhi v. Pearl Hosiery Mills and ors, and State Bank of India v. Machine Well Industries and ors., reported in (1983) 53 Company Cases Pg. 830. It is submitted that the defendants are discharged as the plaintiffs have allowed the claim against third parties to become time barred.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S N Variava - Full Document

Mukesh Gupta vs Sicom Ltd. on 11 June, 2003

With respect to the learned Judge the view expressed by him runs counter to the decision of the Privy Council in Hodges v. Delhi and London Bank Ltd. Reliance placed by Mr. Dwarkadas on the division bench decision in K. R. Chitguppi Company's case is totally misconceived. In fact that judgment supports the case of the respondent than the appellant. This is clear from the following observations:
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - A P Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next