Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing Kuju Collieries Ltd vs Jharkhand Mines Ltd. & Ors on 12 August, 1974

Narayan Kisan Gade vs Machchindranath Kundlik Tarade And ... on 17 September, 1993

In in the case of Kuju Collieries v. Jharkhand Mines Ltd., it is observed that when the agreement is void ab initio within the knowledge of the parties, the Court would not assist the parties. It is a case under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948. The relevant observations are that where a mining lease in favour of the plaintiff was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1948 and the Rules thereunder and void-ab-initio and there was proof to show that the plaintiff could not have been in ignorance of the legal position, the necessary conclusion is that the case would not be covered by section 65 or even section 70 or 72 of the Contract Act and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim refund of the sum paid in pursuance of the lease under that provision. It was further observed that when both the parties namely the transferor and the transferee are in pari delicto, it can not be overlooked that the courts do not assist a person who comes with unclean hands. In such cases, defendant possesses an advantage over the plaintiff-in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentio.
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S Oss Air Management Pvt. Ltd. vs S.K. Singh on 6 March, 2017

28. Even if it is assumed that the Arbitrator did have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Agreement was void by virtue of Section 23 of the Contract Act and it is accepted that the Agreement in question was void; nonetheless, OSS would be entitled to refund of the amount paid under a void agreement by virtue of Section 65 of the Contract Act. In terms of Section 65 of the Contract Act, any party to an agreement which is discovered to be void, is bound to restore any benefit that he has received to compensate the person from whom he has received such advantage. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kuju Collieries Ltd. v. Jharkhand Mines Ltd. (supra), does not further the respondent's case. In that case, the Supreme Court had clearly explained that whether the contract is discovered as void subsequently or become void after it has entered into, the party who has received any benefit would be bound to restore such advantage or compensation. It is only in cases where both the parties knew at the time when the agreement was entered into that it was not lawful and, therefore, void that Section 65 of the Contract Act would not apply. The said decision would have no application in the facts of the present case. It is nobody's case that both the parties were fully aware at the time of entering into the Agreement that the same was void; no such claim has been made and no such finding has been returned by the Arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

No.1 Issued A Notice Dated 13.07.2007 ... vs No.1 Issued A Reply Notice Dated ... on 26 March, 2021

In the above-mentioned decision reported in 1974 (2) - S.C.C. - 533 = A.I.R. - 1974 - S.C. - 1892 (Kuju Collieries Limited vs. Jarkhand Mines Limited), it was held that since the Plaintiff therein was already in mining business and had the advantage of consulting its lawyers and solicitors, and their lease deed was prepared and drawn up by solicitors and there was no occasion 24 Com.AS.No.36/2015 for the Plaintiff to be under any kind of ignorance of law with regard to the Mineral Concession Rules rendering the lease illegal. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court appreciated the reason given by the Trial Court for not giving the benefit of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act to the Plaintiff, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly defined the scope of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act in the following words:-
Bangalore District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chikkamudavadi Village vs That The Accused Would Always Keep ... on 3 April, 2021

(4) (2006) 5 SCC 39 M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala 33 CC No.21505/2013 SCC.H-25 and Another, (5) AIR 2018 S.C. 536`1 Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam", (6) (2002) 2 SCC 642 A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S.Nagabasavanna, (7) AIR 1974 SC 1892 Kuju Collieries Ltd Vs. Jharkhand Mines Ltd. And Others", (8) (1999) 3 SCC 35 Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal", (9) AIR 1971 S.C. 1865 Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Others V. Yelamarti Satyam and Others.". These citations are applicable to the present case on hand. The counsel for the accused has also relied upon the other decisions; (10) AIR 1986 S.C. 1099 M/s. Sodhi Transport Co. And another, etc. Vs. State of U.P. and another etc.
Bangalore District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chikkamudavadi Village vs That The Accused Would Always Keep ... on 3 April, 2021

(4) (2006) 5 SCC 39 M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Another, (5) AIR 2018 S.C. 536`1 Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam", (6) (2002) 2 SCC 642 A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S.Nagabasavanna, (7) AIR 1974 SC 1892 Kuju Collieries Ltd Vs. Jharkhand Mines Ltd. And Others", (8) (1999) 3 SCC 35 Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal", (9) AIR 1971 S.C. 1865 Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Others V. Yelamarti Satyam and Others.". These citations are applicable to the present case on 34 CC No.21502/2013 SCC.H-25 hand. The counsel for the accused has also relied upon the other decisions; (10) AIR 1986 S.C. 1099 M/s. Sodhi Transport Co. And another, etc. Vs. State of U.P. and another etc.
Bangalore District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next