Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.35 seconds)Section 41 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
This passage was cited with approval of this Court in Biltu Ram Vs.
Jainandan Prasad, Civil Appeal No. 941 of 1965, decided on 15.4.1968, and
again in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohammed Haji Latif & Ors., [AIR
1968 SC 1413] in which it was held:
Har Chandi Lal And Ors. vs Sheoraj Singh And Ors. on 19 December, 1916
Privy Council in Har Chandi Lal and Others vs.
Sheoraj Singh and others [AIR 1916 PC 68] held that Section 41 of the
Contract Act applies only where a contract has in fact been performed by
some person other than the person bound thereby. What is required by
Section 41 is actual performance of the original promise and not a
substituted promise.
Union Of India vs D.M. Revri & Co on 2 September, 1976
Similarly in Union of India's case (supra) the
railways in order to meet the claim of the plaintiff by damages for non-
delivery of railway consignment sent a cheque for lesser amount with an
express stipulation in the letter accompanying the cheque that in case the
plaintiff was not prepared to accept the amount he should return the cheque,
but, the plaintiff encashed the cheque and brought the suit against the
railways for the balance amount. Plea of the railways that acceptance of the
lesser amount was evidence of accord and satisfaction was not accepted
and, in our view, rightly so. The principle applied was the same as in the
earlier two cases, referred to above. In the present case, as stated in the
foregoing paragraphs, the SCB had substituted its original satisfaction by
asking for and taking the SCB of CMF as deemed fit for its own reason
which have not been disclosed to the Court. The cases cited by Mr. Nariman
referred to in this paragraph under the circumstances would have no
applicability.