Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 8 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs M/S. B. K. Mondal And Sons on 5 December, 1961
"14. It is plain that three conditions must be satisfied
before this section can be invoked. The first condition
is that a person should lawfully do something for
another person or deliver something to him. The
second condition is that in doing the said thing or
delivering the said thing he must not intend to act
gratuitously; and the third is that the other person for
whom something is done or to whom something is
delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof. When these
conditions are satisfied Section 70 imposes upon the
latter person the liability to make compensation to the
former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done
or delivered. In appreciating the scope and effect of
the provisions of this section it would be useful to
illustrate how this section would operate. If a person
delivers something to another it would be open to the
latter person to refuse to accept the thing or to return
it; in that case Section 70 would not come into
operation. Similarly, if a person does something for
another it would be open to the latter person not to
accept what has been done by the former; in that case
again Section 70 would not apply. In other words, the
person said to be made liable under Section 70
always has the option not to accept the thing or to
return it. It is only where he voluntarily accepts the
thing or enjoys the work done that the liability under
Section 70 arises. Taking the facts in the case before
us, after the respondent constructed the warehouse,
for instance, it was open to the appellant to refuse to
accept the said warehouse and to have the benefit of
it. It could have called upon the respondent to
demolish the said warehouse and take away the
materials used by it in constructing it; but, if the
appellant accepted the said warehouse and used it
and enjoyed its benefit then different considerations
come into play and Section 70 can be invoked. Section
70 occurs in Chapter V which deals with certain
relations resembling those created by contract. In
CS (OS) 215/2019 Page 11 of 20
other words, this chapter does not deal with the rights
or liabilities accruing from the contract. It deals with
the rights and liabilities accruing from relations
which resemble these created by contract. That being
so, reverting to the facts of the present case once
again, after the respondent constructed the warehouse
it would not be open to the respondent to compel the
appellant to accept it because what the respondent
has done is not in pursuance of the terms of any valid
contract and the respondent in making the
construction took the risk of the rejection of the work
by the appellant. Therefore, in cases falling under
Section 70 the person doing something for another or
delivering something to another cannot sue for the
specific performance of the contract nor ask for
damages for the breach of the contract for the simple
reason that there is no contract between him and the
other person for whom he does something or to whom
he delivers something. All that Section 70 provides is
that if the goods delivered are accepted or the work
done is voluntarily enjoyed then the liability to pay
compensation for the enjoyment of the said goods or
the acceptance of the said work arises. Thus, where a
claim for compensation is made by one person against
another under Section 70, it is not on the basis of any
subsisting contract between the parties, it is on the
basis of the fact that something was done by the party
for another and the said work so done has been
voluntarily accepted by the other party. That broadly
stated is the effect of the conditions prescribed by
Section 70."
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs Tata Communication Limited on 27 February, 2019
25. The remedy sought by the Plaintiff in this suit, though quite creative,
would not be maintainable inasmuch as the agreement between the Plaintiff
and ITNL is subsisting and has not been terminated. The Plaintiff has
executed the works for ITNL, even though NHIDC may have indirectly
benefited from the same. The contracts may be back-to-back in nature, but
the Plaintiff cannot by-pass its existing contractual relationship with ITNL.
As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India &
Ors. (supra) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Tata
Communications Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 1766/2019, decided on 27th
February, 2019], Section 70 falls in that Chapter of the Indian Contract
Act,1872 which deals with relationships which resemble contracts. In that
sense, the provision belongs to the category of quasi contracts and
restitution.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Vikas Majdoor Kamdar Sahkari Mandli Ltd on 12 November, 2007
25. The remedy sought by the Plaintiff in this suit, though quite creative,
would not be maintainable inasmuch as the agreement between the Plaintiff
and ITNL is subsisting and has not been terminated. The Plaintiff has
executed the works for ITNL, even though NHIDC may have indirectly
benefited from the same. The contracts may be back-to-back in nature, but
the Plaintiff cannot by-pass its existing contractual relationship with ITNL.
As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India &
Ors. (supra) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Tata
Communications Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 1766/2019, decided on 27th
February, 2019], Section 70 falls in that Chapter of the Indian Contract
Act,1872 which deals with relationships which resemble contracts. In that
sense, the provision belongs to the category of quasi contracts and
restitution.
Section 241 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 242 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
M/S.Essar Oil Ltd vs Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors on 2 July, 2015
19. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the applicants,
submits that upon the value of work done being ascertained, the payments
have to be received by the applicants and not directly by the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff cannot by-pass the insolvency proceedings by filing the present
civil suit. Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submits that either the suit be dismissed and
the Plaintiff be directed to approach the NCLAT or the applicants be
impleaded. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., (2015) 10 SCC 642 to argue that
since there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,
the Plaintiff cannot hold up any payments which the applicants are entitled
CS (OS) 215/2019 Page 8 of 20
to receive. The only remedy available to the Plaintiff is to get itself
impleaded in the insolvency proceedings pending against ITNL.