Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 25 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Union Of India (Uoi) vs S. Narain Singh on 1 August, 1951
A similar dispute arose before the Punjab High Court in an excise settlement. - Kapur, J., as the learned Judge then was, in the case of Union of India v. Narain Singh, AIR 1953 Puni 274 stated:
Haridwar Singh vs Bagun Sumbrui And Ors on 25 February, 1972
This decision has in terms been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui (supra).
T. Linga Gowder vs State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 16 June, 1969
The same learned Judge in the case of T. Linga Gowder v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 Mad 28 stated:
The Secretary Of State For India vs Bhaskar Krishnaji Samant on 7 April, 1925
"In the present case, when the District Forest Officer had taken time to consider whether he should confirm the plaintiff's highest bid, no consideration passed for the contract. Nor did the conditions in the sale notice, by the plaintiff signing the same, bring about a precedent eon-tract between the parties. In fact, there are no such conditions in the terms of the sale notice. Even if there was such a one, it would be invalid as having no legal force, as pointed out in ILR (1947) Mad 837 : (AIR 1947 Mad 366). The position may be different, if, as noticed in Secy, of State v. Bhasker Krishnaji, AIR 1925 Bom 485, there is a statutory rule having force of law precluding withdrawal of bid before its acceptance or refusal is communicated to the bidder. ....."
Somasundaram Pillai vs The Provincial Government Of Madras ... on 11 December, 1946
The price offered at the auction was nothing more than an offer and until the competent authority ratified the offer by acceptance, under the statutory provision quoted above, petitioner was entitled to withdraw the offer. Such a question arose before the Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Somesundaram Pillai v. Provincial Govt. of Madras, AIR 1947 Mad 366. Chief Justice Leach spoke for the Court in the following manner (at p. 367):
Har Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors on 21 January, 1975
5. We may now advert to the last question. Learned Government Advocate has contended relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commr., AIR 1975 SC 1121 that a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for deciding disputes arising under contracts. He has also further contended that in several of the cases to which we have referred and on which reliance has been placed by us, the question arose in regular civil litigations. It has also been contended by learned Government Advocate that the writ application is not maintain-able in view of the amended provi-