Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Chandra Sreenivasa Rao vs Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao And Anr. on 17 April, 1951

K.Nagamalleshwara Rao And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 March, 1991

In Chandra Sreenivasa Rao v. Korrapati Raja Rama Mohan Rao and Anr., A.I.R. 1952 Madras 579, Subba Rao J., as he then was, while considering the word "object" in s. 23 of the Contract Act in the context of enforceability of the debt secured to celebrate the marriage of the minor which was prohibited by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, held that the word "object" in s. 23 meant "purpose" or "design" of the contract. The purpose of borrowing was unlawful as it was opposed to the public policy of celebrating the marriage of a minor in violation of the statutory provisions, and therefore, the promissory note was held to be unenforcable. An agreement between A & B to purchase property at an auction sale jointly and not to bid against each other at the auction is perfectly lawful, though the object may be to avoid competition between the two. But if there is an agreement between all the competing bidders at the auction sale, be it of the court sale or revenue sale, or sale by the government of its property or privilege and formed a ring to peg down the price and to purchase the property at knock out price, the purpose or design of the agreement is to defraud the third party, namely , the debtor or Govt. whose property is sold out at the court auction or revenue sale, or public welfare. The object or consideration of the contract, oral or written, to share such property is unlawful. There is also implied "injury to the debtor"
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Haseen Banu vs Syed Habeeb Sayeeduddin And Ors. on 25 April, 1996

In Sreenvasa Rao v. Rama Mohana Rao, , money was lent to a person to celebrate marriage of a minor child, which was prohibited under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. It was held by Justice Subba Rao, (as he then was) mat the object of the loan if permitted will defeat the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act and will also be against the public policy and hence borrowing is unlawful within the meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act In view. I of these decisions, we have no hesitation in rejecting the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that the sale deed dated 27-6-1961 is void.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Klg Tradefin Private Limited vs Ashoka Hawai And Shoes Private Limited on 15 July, 2022

In Chandra Sreenivasa Rao v. Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao, Subba Rao, J., as he then was, while considering the word "object" in Section 23 of the Contract Act in the context of enforceability of the debt secured to celebrate the marriage of the minor which was prohibited by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, held that the word "object" in Section 23 meant "purpose"
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - H Tandon - Full Document

Gurmukh Singh vs Amar Singh on 15 March, 1991

In Chandra Sreenivasa Rao v. Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao and Anr. , Subba Rao J., as he then was, while considering the word "object" in Section 23 of the Contract Act in the context of enforceability of the debt secured to celebrate the marriage of the minor which was prohibited by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, held that the word "object" in Section 23 meant "purpose" or "design" of the contract. The purpose of borrowing was unlawful as it was opposed to the public policy of celebrating the marriage of a minor in violation of the statutory provisions, and therefore, the promissory note was held to be unenforceable. An agreement between A & B to purchase property at an auction sale jointly and not to bid against each other at the auction is perfectly lawful, though the object may be to avoid competition between the two. But if there is an agreement between all the competing bidders at the auction sale, be it of the court sale or revenue sale, or sale by the government of its property or privilege and formed a ring to peg down the price and to purchase the property at knock out price, the purpose or design of the agreement is to defraud the third party, namely, the debtor or Govt. whose property is sold out at the court auction or revenue sale, or public welfare. The object or consideration of the contract, oral or written, to share such property is unlawful. There is also implied "injury to the debtor" within the meaning of Section 23. Thereby the contract was fraudulent. The contract thus is also opposed to public policy and is void. Take for instance four persons participated at an auction sale; pursuant to their previous agreement, they made a pretext of participation in the auction; bid upto an agreed price though the real value of the property is much more than what they had offered for. Here the design or object of their forming a ring is to knock out the property for a song to defraud the debtor or public. What is the object of the public policy in this regard ? The scope of public policy was classified into five groups in paragraph 1134 at p. 686 of Chitty's on Contract, 26th Edn., Vol. I, thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Thirumalai And Anr. vs Goniathi Ammal And Anr. on 9 August, 1999

11. Much reliance was placed by learned Counsel for appellants on the decision of this Court reported in Chandra Sreenivasa Rao v. Korrapatti Raja Rama Mohana Rao and Ors. (1951) 2 M.L.J. 264 : A.I.R. 1962 Mad. 579, That is a case of admitted child marriage. In that case, Subba Rao, J., as he then was, was considering a question whether any act of a guardian or parent celebrating the marriage of a child is against public policy. In that case, for the purpose of marriage of a child, loan was taken. The lender was aware that the purpose of the loan was for conducting a child marriage. Learned Judge refused to grant relief to the plaintiff, applying the principles of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tribeni Pd. Rastogi vs Basudeo Pd. Rastogi on 16 April, 1980

6. Now, we may notice the three cases relied upon by the trial court and which were also relied upon before us by the learned counsel for the respondents. They are : AIR 1952 Mad 579 (Chandra Sreenivasa Rao v. Rama Mohana Rao); AIR 1972 All 357 (Paras-ram v. Smt. Naraini Devi); and 1959 BLJR 549 (Sewsagar Avasty v. Satya-narain Sah), In the first case before the Madras High Court a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was advanced by the plaintiff to the second defendant for the purpose ot celebrating the marriage of her son, the first defendant, on the basis of a promissory note. The first defendant himself was described in the promissory note as a minor. The plaintiff was the brother-in-law of the first defendant. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was), in these circumstances, held that it could not be disputed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the fact that the money was borrowed for celebrating the marriage in contravention of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, which was a prohibited act. The learned Judge was constrained to observe :
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sh. Shiv Nandan vs Sh. Tajuddin Khan on 7 April, 2010

16.In Sreenivasa Rao v. Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao, AIR 1952 Mad. 579 while considering the word "object" in section 23 of the Contract Act it was held as under:­ The scope of public policy can be classified into five groups as are detailed Chitty on Contract which is as under:­ "Objects which on grounds of public policy invalidate contracts may, for convenience, be generally classified into five groups; first, objects which are illegal by common law or by legislation; secondly, objects injurious to good Government either in the field of domestic or foreign affairs; thirdly, objects which interfere with the proper working of the machinery of justice; fourthly, objects injuries to marriage and morality; and, fifthly, objects economically against the public interest.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1