Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 32 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960
In such a case the doctrine of discharge by frustration
cannot be available, nor that of an implied term that the
existing state of
(1) M/s Alopi Parshad & Sons v. Union of India [1960] 2
(1) S.C.R. 2,0.6 793 at p. 808.
Ganga Saran vs Ram Charan Ram Gopal on 1 November, 1951
In Ganga Saran v. Ram Charan(1)
this Court emphasized that so far as the courts in this
country are concerned they must look primarily to the law as
embodied in secs. 32 and 56 of the Contract Act.
The Union Of India vs Kishorilal Gupta And Bros on 21 May, 1959
In the view that we take that the said contract cannot be
said to be or to have been void and that in any event the
stipulation as to obtaining the import licence was absolute,
the question that the arbitration clause perished along with
the contract and consequently the arbitrators had no
jurisdiction cannot arise. But assuming that the appellants
had established frustration even then it would not be as if
the contract was ab initio void and therefore not in
existence. In cases of frustration it is the performance of
the contract which comes to an end but the contract would
still be in existence for purposes such as the resolution of
disputes arising under or in connection with it. The
question as to whether the contract became impossible of
performance and was discharged under the doctrine of
frustration would still have to be decided under the
arbitration clause which operates in respect of such
purposes. (Union of India v. Kishorilal(1).
Mr. B. Sen for the appellants also raised two other
questions, as to the legal misconduct on the part of the
arbitrators and as regards interest on damages awarded by
them. We need not however say anything about these two
questions as ultimately they were not pressed by him.
The last contention raised by him was that the arbitrators
awarded damages on the basis of the market rate at Rs. 51
per maund instead of Rs. 65 which was the export price fixed
by the Government of Pakistan. The argument was that such a
basis was contrary to the public policy laid down by the
Government of Pakistan and it would not be expedient on our
part to give our imprimatur to an infringement by the
arbitrators of such a policy. There is, in our view. no
merit in the argument. The Government of Pakistan cannot
lay down any public or economic policy for this country. If
the arbitrators found the prevalent rate
[1960] 1 S.C.R. 514.
Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 November, 1953
In
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram(2) also, Mukherjee J. (as he
then was) stated that sec. 56 laid down a rule of positive
law and did not leave the matter to be determined according
to the intention of the parties. Since under the Contract
Act a promise may be expressed or implied, in cases where
the court gathers as a matter of construction that the con-
tract itself contains impliedly or expressly a term
according to which it would stand discharged on the,
happening of certain circumstances the dissolution of the
contract would take place under the terms of the contract
itself and such cases would be outside the purview of sec.
G. Thiruvenkatachariar, Official ... vs A.T. Velu Mudaliar And Anr. on 28 September, 1937
As Lord Sumner in Bank Lime Ltd. v. Capel (A)
Co. Ltd.(5) said:-
1