Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (5.11 seconds)
Documents citing Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & Sons Etc on 12 December, 1974

Navdurga Charitable Trust vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 September, 2017

20. Any agreement which is opposed to Personal law of the parties or opposed to public policy, is void. (Vide C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Murugantha Mudaliar, AIR 1953 SC 495; Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh v. Ambica Prasad Singh, AIR 1971 SC 776; Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1471; Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji v. Firm of Kotrike Venkata Setty and Sons, AIR 1975 SC 1223; Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530: (AIR 1988 SC 644), S. R. Nayak v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1420).
Gujarat High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Shankarbhai Harjibhai ... vs Special Secretary & on 12 September, 2017

21. Any agreement which is opposed to Personal law of the parties or opposed to public policy, is void. (Vide C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Murugantha Mudaliar, AIR 1953 SC 495; Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh v. Ambica Prasad Singh, AIR 1971 SC 776; Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1471; Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji v. Firm of Kotrike Venkata Setty and Sons, AIR 1975 SC 1223; Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530: (AIR 1988 SC 644), S. R. Nayak v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1420).
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

M/S.Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals ... vs M/S.Axis Bank Limited on 14 October, 2008

72. As per the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagwandas Parasram Vs. Burjori Ruttonji Bomanji {AIR 1917 PC 101} and followed by the Supreme Court in Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji Vs. Firm of Kotrike Venkata Setty & Sons and Others {(1975) 2 SCC 208} (stated in paragraph-64 above), every speculation will not fall under the category of wager. There must be a common intention to wager. In this case, there was certainly no intention much less a common intention to wager. The plaintiff attempts to project the transaction as a wager by contending that OPT 727 was not in respect of a specific underlying contract of import or export and that therefore it was only speculative in nature. But the plaintiff cannot be heard to raise such a contention in view of the covenant (or declaration) made by the plaintiff to the defendant in OPT 727 that there was an underlying exposure and that the transaction was not for the purpose of speculation. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was an intention on the part of the plaintiff to speculate, no such intention on the part of the Bank to speculate, is made out by the plaintiff in the plaint. Thus, there was certainly no common intention to wager, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that there was an intention on the part of the Officer of the plaintiff to speculate. In such circumstances, the transaction in question cannot certainly be termed as a wagering contract. Therefore the plaintiff cannot avoid the contract on the ground that it was a wager.
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 22 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. vs Sebi on 5 November, 2020

116. Appellant No. 1, RIL admits that the 12 named entities, namely appellant no. 2 to 13 were its agents. In view of this admission, the principles of the principal- agent relationship -94- need not be elaborated and is not necessary to go into the case laws cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. However, the fundamental principle of agency law is enunciated in Sec 226 of the Contract Act 1872 which provides that contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences, as if the contracts has been entered into and the acts done by the principal in person. This concept has been explained by the Calcutta High Court in Sukumari Gupta vs Dhirendra Nath Roy Choudhary, 1984 SCC online Cal 244 and by the Supreme Court in Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm of Kopike Venkata Shetty (1975) 2 SCC 208 and again by the Supreme Court in Jagir Singh Vs Ranbir Singh 1979 AIR SC 381.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Janak Singh Yadav And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Ministry Of Irrigation, ... on 1 August, 2005

33. Any agreement which is opposed to Personal law of the parties or opposed to public policy, is void. (Vide C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Murugantha Mudaliar, ; Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh v. Ambica Prasad Singh, ; Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat, ; Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji v. Firm of Kotrike Venkata Setty and Sons, ; Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, , S. R. Nayak v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1420).
Allahabad High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 9 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M/S Osho G.S. And Company vs M/S Wapcos Limited on 22 December, 2022

52. Mr Sundaram has strongly relied on Pratapchand Nopaji [Pratapchand Nopaji v. Kotrike Venkata Setty & Sons, (1975) 2 SCC 208] . In the said case, the three-Judge Bench applied the maxim "qui facit per alium facit per se". We may profitably reproduce the passage : (SCC p. 214, para 9) „9. ... The principle which would apply, if the objects are struck by Section 23 of the Contract Act, is embodied in the maxim:"qui facit per alium facit per se" (what one does through another is done by oneself). To put it in another form, that which cannot be done directly may not be done indirectly by engaging another outside the prohibited area to do the illegal act within the prohibited area. It is immaterial whether, for the doing of such an illegal act, the agent employed is given the wider powers or authority of the "pucca adatia", or, as the High Court had held, he is clothed with the powers of an ordinary commission agent only.‟
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next