Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (3.73 seconds)
Union Of India vs Rahul Springs Pvt Ltd on 2 April, 2025 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union ... on 11 October, 2007

For this argument, precedents propounded, in State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (2007) 11 SCC 363, CIT V/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 2008 SCC Online Delhi 1433, M/s Bisesar, House Vs. State of Bombay, 1958 SCC Online Bombay 25 118, has been pressed. The law laid down by this Tribunal, in Union of India V/s Seashore Securities Ltd, 2020 SCC Online TDSAT 3, Union of India V/s Mahua Media Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC Online TDSAT 252, Union of India V/s C- Voter Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. In B.P 182 of 2018, judgment and order dated 14.02.2024, are judgment per incuriam. Hence, Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2023 for referring the issues to larger Bench was moved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 254 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bisesar House vs State Of Bombay And Ors. on 23 July, 1958

For this argument, precedents propounded, in State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (2007) 11 SCC 363, CIT V/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 2008 SCC Online Delhi 1433, M/s Bisesar, House Vs. State of Bombay, 1958 SCC Online Bombay 25 118, has been pressed. The law laid down by this Tribunal, in Union of India V/s Seashore Securities Ltd, 2020 SCC Online TDSAT 3, Union of India V/s Mahua Media Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC Online TDSAT 252, Union of India V/s C- Voter Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. In B.P 182 of 2018, judgment and order dated 14.02.2024, are judgment per incuriam. Hence, Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2023 for referring the issues to larger Bench was moved.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Nav Rattanmal And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 April, 1961

24. The Law, being said to be per incuriam, is not of that nature, as is being argued by learned counsel for the respondent. Rather claims instituted, for and on behalf of the Central Government, or the State Government, is provided with the period of limitation of thirty years, as per Article 112 of the Limitation Act 1963, and it has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan, 1961 SCC OnLine 321 ; Accountant General (A&E) & Anr. v. Sethumadhavan Nair, (2004) 13 SCC 14.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 45 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Maula Bux vs Union Of India on 19 August, 1969

31. The agreement, in question, was determinable, and in case of determinable contract, or contract for service, no specific performance can be ordered. Subject matter of the present dispute, was satellite transponder service, and it was determinable in nature, as was given under Article 6 of the Agreement. Hence, specific performance thereof cannot be claimed as per Section 14(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In present petition, the relief claimed by petitioner is for service charges as per Exhibit- 36 B, payment schedule to the agreement. Whereas Article 9 b(iv) provides for exclusive remedy of damages/compensation in line with Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, and in view of above facts and legal proposition, specific performance of contract was not maintainable. Rather, the only remedy, which may be available, in case of breach of claim for compensation/ damages, under section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, was to be pleaded and proved. But in present petition, no proof thereof, has been made, nor pleaded by petitioner. Hence, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in Maula Bux Vs Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1955, as well as Murlidhar Charanjilal vs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas and Anr, 1961 SCC Online SC 100, this claimed amount may not be awarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 430 - J C Shah - Full Document

M/S. Murlidhar Chiranjilal vs M/S. Harishchandra Dwarkadas And ... on 29 March, 1961

31. The agreement, in question, was determinable, and in case of determinable contract, or contract for service, no specific performance can be ordered. Subject matter of the present dispute, was satellite transponder service, and it was determinable in nature, as was given under Article 6 of the Agreement. Hence, specific performance thereof cannot be claimed as per Section 14(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In present petition, the relief claimed by petitioner is for service charges as per Exhibit- 36 B, payment schedule to the agreement. Whereas Article 9 b(iv) provides for exclusive remedy of damages/compensation in line with Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, and in view of above facts and legal proposition, specific performance of contract was not maintainable. Rather, the only remedy, which may be available, in case of breach of claim for compensation/ damages, under section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, was to be pleaded and proved. But in present petition, no proof thereof, has been made, nor pleaded by petitioner. Hence, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in Maula Bux Vs Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1955, as well as Murlidhar Charanjilal vs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas and Anr, 1961 SCC Online SC 100, this claimed amount may not be awarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 86 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

M. Lachia Setty & Sons Ltd. Etc. Etc vs The Coffee Board, Bangalore on 9 October, 1980

32. The mitigative steps had not been taken by petitioner as per Article 2(b). The agreement commences on the advance payment and unless DOS agreed contrary to it, no service will be provided. Respondent never paid, as no mandatory license/permission, under 1885 Act, as well as 1933 Act, were granted for the reasons, beyond the control of Respondent, and the Respondent clearly refused to pay, vide its letter dated 28.05.2012, as well as 30.04.2013, in the absence of permissions by MIB/NOCC/WPC. No liability of Respondent accrued as per above terms. The Respondent attempted to work out the future course of action, in term of Article 8(c), 37 but was refused by DOS, by Email/letter dated 14.03.20211, and 17.06.2011. Whereas mitigative steps, mandatory to be taken, as per Section 73 Indian Contract Act, 1872 and termination, under Article 6(D) have been effected by DOS, after two defaults, that is, in month of December 2010 and January 2011. Mutually agreeable way forward, should have been arrived under Article 8 (c), which was refused by DOS, and once no monthly payment was made, the agreement never commenced, and capacity was never allocated to Respondent. Hence, in view of law, laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 14 of M.Lachia Setty and Sons Ltd vs Coffee Board, Bangalore (1980) 4 SCC 636, this claim may not be awarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 39 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document
1