Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 156 (3.37 seconds)
Documents citing Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat And Another on 12 September, 1974

Navayuga Machilipatnam Port Limited vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 25 August, 2022

The plaintiff could not get possession before declaration under Section 21 of the ULC Act. Mr Dhanuka also contended that the agreement is not 19 RRR,J W.P.No.12980 of 2019 determinable is clear from the conduct of original Defendant 1 and also what he stated in the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 10-2-1978 about agreement not being terminable. The contention of learned counsel is that what original Defendant 1 has said in the said document is his interpreting statement which is admissible in law and this interpreting statement and also his conduct, clearly shows that the agreement was not terminable by original Defendant 1. Strong reliance has been placed on Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(1975) 1 SCC 199 : (1975) 2 SCR 42] in particular on the following passage: (SCC pp. 205-06, para 11) "11. In the process of interpretation of the terms of a contract, the court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performances under it. Parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also by mutual agreement remake them. The process of practical interpretation and application, however, is not regarded by the parties as a remaking of the contract; nor do the courts so regard it. Instead, it is merely a further expression by the parties of the meaning that they give and have given to the terms of their contract previously made. There is no good reason why the courts should not give great weight to these further expressions by the parties, in view of the fact that they still have the same freedom of contract that they had originally. The American courts receive subsequent actings as admissible guides in interpretation. It is true that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour. It is the concurrence therein that such a party can use against the other party. This concurrence may be evidenced by the other party's express assent thereto, by his acting in accordance with it, by his receipt without objection of performances that indicate it, or by saying nothing when he knows that the first party is acting on reliance upon the interpretation."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And Infrastructure ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:35:00 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And Infrastructure ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:40:53 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And Infrastructure ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:37:24 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And Infrastructure ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:43:13 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And Infrastructue ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:36:37 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:39:35 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And Infrastructure ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:39:19 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Neelkanth Mansions And ... vs Urban Infrastructure Ventures Capital ... on 7 December, 2018

Insofar as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The State of Gujarat and another (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the claimants is concerned, it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the process of interpretation of the terms of a 123 ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:41:12 ::: carbp13-17g.doc contract, the Court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties- themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. The parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also, by mutual agreement, remake them. It is further held that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Radheshyam Kedia vs Sriniwas Pandit And Another on 26 August, 1988

In the case of Union of India v. D. N. Rc\ri & Co. (supra) although arbitration clause provided for. the appointment of an arbitrator by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Food & Agriculture nomination of the arbitrator was made by a Secretary, Department of Food, in the Ministry of Food & Agriculture at the time when the arbitration clause was made. There was only one Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture but at the time of nomination there were two departments of the said Ministry -- one of Food and other of Agriculture and it was the Secretary, Department of Food, who made the nomination. It may be noted that although notice under S. 80 of the C.P. Code was served by the respondent, instead of filing a suit the respondents filed their statement of claim before the arbitrator and in the statement they claimed payment of an aggregate sum of Rs. 7,89,858/- from the appellant and also prayed for a declaration that the contract stood final and properly performed by the respondents. The appellant also filed its reply. It was stated in para 18 of the statement of claim of the appellant "that under Cl. 17 of the contract the Secretary, Food and Agriculture Ministry of the Government in its discretion has the right to nominate sole arbitrator and referred the dispute to the arbitrator and that has been duly done on 27th Feb. 1958 and the parties have been duly notified under Secretary to the Government letter No. SIMPT-3(4) dt. 27th Feb. 1962." The respondents filed their written statement denying the claim of the appellant and in para 18 of the written statement they averred that para 18 of the statement of claim in which Government of India has not objected to the proceedings in connection with the claim of the respondents and the counter claim of the respondents were carried on before the arbitrator and the respondent participated in the arbitration proceedings without objection or protests against the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The arbitrator ultimately made an award against the respondents. The only question before the Supreme Court was as to whether the appointment of the arbitrator by the Secretary, Department of Food in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture was avalid appointment. Obviously, if the appointment was invalid the arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to arbitrate upon the dispute between the parties and the award would be invalid. But an alternative argument was also advanced on behalf of the appellant to sustain the award and it was that the respondents not having raised any objection to the appointment of arbitrator and participate in the arbitration proceedings without any demur or protest, it was not open to them after the award was made to challenge it on the ground of invalidity of the appointment of arbitrator. The Supreme Court held that the document being a commercial document between the parties it must be interpreted in such a manner as to give efficacy to the contract rather than to invalidate it. The Supreme Court further held that it would not be right while interpreting a contract, entered into between two lay parties, to apply strict rules of construction which are ordinarily applicable to a conveyance and other formal documents. The meaning of such a contract must be gathered by adopting a common sense approach and it must not be allowed to be thwarted by a narrow pedantic and legalistic interpretation. The Supreme Court held that there is no reason why the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture-in-charge of the department of Food could not be described Secre-tary. He would be the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture concerned with the subject matter of the contract and clearly and indubitably he would be a person intended by the parties to exercise the power of nominating the arbitrator. The parties to the contract obviously could not be expected to use the words a Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture because their intent was not that any Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture should be entitled to exercise the power of nominating an arbitrator but it should only be the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture concerned with the subject matter of the contract. The Supreme Court also considered it to be significant that when the Secretary-in-Charge of the department of Food in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture nominated the arbitra-tor, the respondents did not raise any objection to the appointment of the arbitrator and participated in the arbitration proceedings without any protest. The respondents knew at that time that there were two Secretaries in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the appointment of arbitrator was made by the Secretary in charge of the department of Food and yet they acquiesced in the appointment of the arbitrator and took part in the proceedings. It was held that this circum-stance is also clearly indicative of the intend-ment of the parties that the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture concerned with the subject matter of the contract should be the person entitled to nominate the arbitrator. Or else the respondent would have objected to the appointment of the arbitrator and declined to participate in the arbitration proceedings or at any rate participated under protest and as such it was held that the arbitrator was validly nominated by the Secretary in charge of the department of Food in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next