Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Food Corporation Of India vs Surana Commercial Co. And Ors. on 19 September, 2003

South Eastren Coalfields Ltd vs Raipur on 22 December, 2020

In this connection, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Surana Commercial Co. and others12. The Supreme Court pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a consideration, but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut ... vs Commissioner, Central Excise And ... on 12 April, 2022

In this connection, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India versus Surana Commercial Co. and others3. The Supreme Court pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a consideration, but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Midnight Merchants Private Limited And ... vs Julien Educational Trust And Others on 15 May, 2008

Mr. Mukherjee submits that the requirement of law is that there must be consideration for a promise and not consideration for a contract. Mr. Mukherjee submits that consideration must be of some real value and it should be at the desire of the promisor. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to and relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1981 SC 1274 [Ku. Sonia Bhatia Vs. State of U. P. and others]; (1997)9 SCC 651 [John Tinson & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Surjeet Malhan (Mrs) and another]; (2001) 6 SCC 600[ A. C. Arulappan Vs. Ahalya Naik (Smt.)]; 1996(5) SCC 589 [Lourdu Mari David and others Vs. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy and others] and (2003)8 SCC 636 [Food Corporation of India Vs. Surana Commercial Co. and others].
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - K Mukherjee - Full Document

Mec Shot Blasting Equipments Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Cgst-Jodhpur on 18 July, 2022

The Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India V. Surana Commercial Co. and others [(2003) 8 SCC 636] pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a consideration; but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... vs Surat-I on 6 November, 2024

In this connection, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Surana Commercial Co. and Others [(2003) 8 SCC 636]. The Supreme Court pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a 8 ST/11159/2019-ST consideration, but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hariyana Ship Demolition Pvt Ltd vs Bhavnagar on 7 November, 2024

31.In this connection, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Surana Commercial Co. and Others [(2003) 8 SCC 636]. The Supreme Court pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a consideration, but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs Vadodara-I on 2 December, 2024

In this connection, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Surana Commercial Co. and Others [(2003) 8 SCC 636]. The Supreme Court pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a consideration, but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cgst & Central Excise Surat vs Gujarat Industries Power Company on 6 May, 2025

In this connection, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Surana Commercial Co. and Others [(2003) 8 SCC 636]. The Supreme Court pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a consideration, but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Jabalpur on 4 May, 2026

In this connection, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Surana Commercial Co. and Others [(2003) 8 SCC 636]. The Supreme Court pointed out that if a party promises to abstain from doing something, it can be regarded as a consideration, but such abstinence has to be specifically mentioned in the agreement. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next