Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.60 seconds)
Pearelal & Sons (E.P.) (P) Ltd. vs V/O Mashpriborintorg And Anr. on 21 November, 1978 cites

Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel And ... vs Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Ltd on 21 March, 1958

In the case before the Supreme Court, Keshavlal Vs. Lalbhai T. Mills Ltd. , the appellants had placed certain orders for cloth on the respondent mills, the delivery of which had to be given in September and October 1942. On August 9, 1942 the workers of the mills went on indefinite strike in sympathy with the Quit India movement and the mills, therefore, wrote to the appellants, that "in view of the strike and political situation, the delivery time of the pending contracts should be automatically understood as extended for the period the working of the mills was stopped and until the normal state of affairs recovered." The mills resumed working in November 1942. but when the appellants approached the mills for delivery as per contract, the mills repudiated liability on the ground that the contracts were "null and void". This contention was upheld by the Supreme Court and it was held, affirming the High Court's judgment, "that the conditions mentioned by the respondent in its letter asking for extension of time were so vague and uncertain that it is not possible to ascertain definitely the period for which the time for the performance of the contract was really intended to be extended. In such a case, the agreement for extension must be held to be vague and uncertain and as such void under Section 29. Contract Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 50 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Khivraj Chordia And Ors. vs Esso Standard Eastern Inc. on 29 November, 1974

In Khivraj Chordia and others v. Esso Standard Eastern Inc. , a lease was renewable on the same terms and conditions except that the "rent" was to be mutually agreed to between the parties with due regard to the then prevailing rents in the locality. The Court repelled a contention that the contract was void for uncertainty holding that the test for voiding a contract on the ground of alleged uncertainty of a term is "not whether the term in itself is certain but whether it is capable of being made certain". These decisions show that the mere existence of a doubt, ambiguity or dispute as to the clause stipulating the monetary consideration in a contract does not render the contract void, as contended by Sri Aggarwal. Applying the above principle to this case, it is difficult to reject the payment clause as vague, uncertain and indefinite of meaning. As pointed out earlier, it consists of two parts one of which is quite clear, definite and certain. The second provides, in accordance with well accepted usage in international contracts, a price variation clause which will operate for the benefit of both the parties depending upon the nature of a variation in the value of the rupee. Its purpose and intent is clear and should be given effect to and not construed so as to invalidate the contract itself.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next