Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Loke Nath Saha on 1 December, 1950

The Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 August, 1961

The learned Judge has also expressly approved of the decision in Krishna Ranjan Basu's case and disapproved the contrary view-expressed in Union of India, v. Loke Nath. In the case of Chaman Lal Loona this Court was dealing with a contract entered into on behalf of the Governor-General in Council for the supply of fodder to the Manager, Military Farms, Lahore Cantonment, which was in Pakistan on August 15, 1947. The trial Court had found that the contract was not enforceable against the Union of India, but this conclusion was reversed by the High Court on the ground that the fodder constituted military stores under the exclusive control of the joint Defence Council on the appointed day, and that it was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India. This Court held that even if it be assumed that the High Court was right in holding that the fodder was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India, the contract must nevertheless be held to be one exclusively for the purposes of Pakistan and the Union of India could not be made liable thereunder. This conclusion was based on the fact that the purpose of a contract is not to be confused with the ultimate disposal of the goods supplied thereunder, since such disposal can in no way determine or modify the contract. It would thus be seen that in considering the nature of the contract in the present appeal either of the two artificial tests approved by this Court must be applied.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 August, 1961

The learned judge has also expressly approved of the decision in Krishna Ranjan Basu's case and disapproved the contrary view expressed in Union of India v. Loke Nath Saha . In the case of Chaman Lal Loona ([1957] S.C.R. 1039), this Court was dealing with a contract entered into on behalf of the Governor-General in Council for the supply of fodder to the Manager, Military Farms, Lahore Cantonment, which was in Pakistan on August 15, 1947. The trial Court had found that the contract was not enforceable against the Union of India, but this conclusion was reversed by the High Court on the ground that the fodder constituted military stores under the exclusive control of the joint Defence Council on the appointed day, and that it was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India. This Court held that even if it be assumed that the High Court was right in holding that the fidder was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India, the contract must nevertheless be held to be one exclusively for the purposes of Pakistan and the Union of India could not made liable thereunder. This conclusion was based on the fact that the purpose of a contract is not to be confused with the ultimate disposal of the goods supplied thereunder, since such disposal can in no way determine or modify the contract. It would thus be seen that in considering the nature of the contract in the present appeal either of the two artificial tests approved by this Court must be applied. Does the application of either of the said tests justify the answer given by the Appeal Court ?
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd vs Union Of India on 31 August, 1961

The learned judge has also expressly approved of the decision in Krishna Ranjan Ba8u's case (2) and disapproved the contrary view expressed in Union of India v. Loke, Nath Saha (3). In the case of Chaman Lal Loona (4) this Court was dealing with a contract entered into on behalf of the GovernorGeneral in Council for the supply of fodder to the Manager, Military Farms, Lahore Cantonment, which was in Pakistan on August 15, 1947. The trial Court bad found that the contract was not enforceable against the Union of India, but this conclusion was reversed by the High Court on the ground that the fodder constituted military stores under the exclusive control of the joint Defence Council on the appointed day, and that it was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India. This Court held that even if it be assumed that the High Court was right in holding that the fodder was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India, the contract must nevertheless be held to be one exclusively for the purposes of Pakistan and the Union of India could not made liable thereunder. This conclusion was based on the fact that the purpose of a contract is not to be confused with the ultimate disposal of the goods supplied thereunder, since such disposal can in no way determine or modify the contract. It would thus be seen that in considering the nature of the contract in the present appeal either of the two artificial tests approved by this Court must be applied. Does the application of either of the said tests justify the answer given by the Appeal Court ?
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

P.K. Basak And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Representing ... on 17 August, 1962

"The purpose of the contract is not determined nor modified by the ultimate disposal of the goods supplied under the contract, nor, even by the powers of control, exercised over the goods after the contract had been performed.........Wherever the goods might ultimately be seat, the purpose of the contract remained what it was, that is, to supply fodder to the Manager, Military Farms, Lahore, which, on the test laid down by us, was dearly a purpose exclusively for the Dominion of Pakistan (Vide the same page 656)."
Calcutta High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chunilal Patua And Anr. vs The State Of Assam on 9 January, 1952

3. Mr. Dam has relied on--'Union of India v. Loke Nath Saha', AIR 1952 Cal 140 (A) and--'Protap Kumar v. Nagendra Nath', AIR 1951 Cal 511 (B) in suppprt of his contention. These cases are distinguishable on facts but the 'ratio decidendi' adopted in these cases would lend support to his contention. In these circumstances, I see no reason why the contention raised by the learned counsel should not prevail. The decree being against the province of Assam, the State of Assam would remain liable for the satisfaction of the decree for reasons given above.
Gauhati High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Chaman Lal Loona on 30 April, 1957

If, however, the contract is one in which the consideration is executed on one side, there will be a right on one side and an outstanding liability on the other. If the consideration is executory on both sides, there will be outstanding rights and liabilities on both sides. In talking of "all rights and liabilities which have accrued or may accrue" under the contract, the Article clearly contemplates both classes of cases. On this question, we approve of the view taken in Elahi Bux v. Union of India and Krishna Ranjan v. Union of India and disapprove of the view expressed by Roxburgh J. in Union of India v. Loke Nath .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S K Das - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Basanta Kumar Mondal on 3 April, 1958

4. Mr. Majumdar placed some reliance on the decision of Roxburgh, J. sitting singly, in the case of Union of India v. Loke Nath Saha, , but we do not think that that decision really assists Mr. Majumdar's contention, and if it does, it must be regarded as opposed to the above two decisions, one of a Bench of this Court and the other of the Supreme Court, to which reference has been made by us in the preceding paragraph, and must, accordingly, be ignored. As a matter of fact, the decision of Roxburgh, J. was expressly overruled by the said Bench decision of this Court in 59 Cal WN 99 and also by the Supreme Court in (S) .
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1