National Agricultural Cooperative ... vs Alimenta S.A. on 22 April, 2020
In Ram Kumar
(supra) High Court held:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.27 seconds)Documents citing
Ram Kumar Agarwalla vs P.C. Roy And Co. (India) Ltd. on 22 May, 1950
Maheshbhai Jivrajbhai Gujarati vs Krishna Pravinbhai Gujarati on 1 September, 2021
(10) Ram Kumar Agarwalla vs. P.C.Roy and Co. (India)
Ltd., AIR 1952 Cal. 397;
Maheshbhai Jivrajbhai Gujarati vs Krishna Pravinbhai Gujarati on 1 September, 2021
(10) Ram Kumar Agarwalla vs. P.C.Roy and Co. (India)
Ltd., AIR 1952 Cal. 397;
Veeraboina Yadaiah vs Mr. Ramakanth Dande, Managing Partner ... on 1 July, 2022
(Twentsche Overseas
Trading Co. Ltd's (supra); Ram Kumar's case (supra)).
Sarawjeet Singh & Anr. vs Asian Hotels North Ltd on 19 July, 2023
56. On the issue of government regulations leading to frustration of
contract, Ram Kumar v. P.C. Roy and Co., (India) Ltd. AIR 1952 Cal
335 becomes relevant as in this case the Calcutta High Court has
explained the doctrine of frustration and its application during the
restrictive governmental regulations leading to impossibility in
performance of a contract. The Court observed as under:
Ka Ron Lanong vs The State Of Assam on 29 August, 1958
Did the plaintiff agree to abide by the above terms and conditions laid down by the defendant?
A.F. Ferguson & Co. And Ors. vs Lalit Mohan Ghosh on 13 August, 1954
In this connection reference may be made to -- 'Ram Kumar v. P.C. Roy & Co. (India) Ltd.', AIR 1952 Cal 335 (P), where it has been held:
M/S.Spic Smo vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 6 August, 2012
In Ram Kumar vs. P.C.Roy & Co., reported in AIR (39) 1952 Calcutta 335 (C.N.87), the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, in paragraph No.20, has observed that:
The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development ... vs M/S.Pottem Brothers, Hyderabad Rep. By ... on 4 February, 2016
(Ram Kumar v.
P.C. Roy ). Frustration occurs whenever the law recognizes that,
without default of either party, a contractual obligation has
become incapable of being performed because the circumstances
in which performance is called for would render it radically
different from that which was undertaken by the contract. There
must be such a change, in the significance of the obligation, that
the thing undertaken would, if performed, be a different thing from
that contracted for.
M/S N.S. Rathore Huf vs M/S Samtel Avionics Limited on 29 February, 2024
56. On the issue of government regulations leading to
frustration of contract, Ram Kumar v. P.C. Roy and Co.,
(India) Ltd. AIR 1952 Cal 335 becomes relevant as in
this case the Calcutta High Court has explained the
doctrine of frustration and its application during the
restrictive governmental regulations leading to
impossibility in performance of a contract. The Court
observed as under: