Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
The National Chamber Of Commerce Ltd., ... vs Nitya Nandan Deoki Nandan on 26 July, 1962 cites

Kedar Nath Motani And Ors. vs Prahlad Rai And Ors. on 25 September, 1959

12. On the view that we have taken of the knowledge of the parties in regard to the validity or otherwise of the transactions it could not be said that the parties in this particular case were, what has been called, in pari delicto. The scope of the maxim 'in pari delicto potior est conditio defendantis' was indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Kedar Nath, Motani v. Prahlad Rai. AIR 1960 SC 213. Their Lordships pointed" out" that the correct position of law was that one had to see whether the illegality which was being relied upon went so much to the root of the matter that the plaintiff would get nonsuited if he did not rely upon the illegal transaction into which he had entered in order to get relief. Their Lordships went on to point out that if the illegality was trivial or venial, as stated by Williston, and the plaintiff was not required to rest his case upon that illegality, then public policy demanded that the defendant should not be allowed to take advantage of the position. As we pointed out much earlier, the plaintiffs in this case had not to rely on the contracts which were illegal or which could not be enforced for the purposes of getting back their money from the defendant-Chamber. Therefore, the latin maxim quoted above could in no manner assist the defendants for defeating the plaintiffs' claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 100 - Full Document
1