Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Aircraft Act, 1934
The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
Kuju Collieries Ltd vs Jharkhand Mines Ltd. & Ors on 12 August, 1974
28. Even if it is assumed that the Arbitrator did have the jurisdiction to
decide whether the Agreement was void by virtue of Section 23 of the
Contract Act and it is accepted that the Agreement in question was void;
nonetheless, OSS would be entitled to refund of the amount paid under a
void agreement by virtue of Section 65 of the Contract Act. In terms of
Section 65 of the Contract Act, any party to an agreement which is
discovered to be void, is bound to restore any benefit that he has received to
compensate the person from whom he has received such advantage. The
decision of the Supreme Court in Kuju Collieries Ltd. v. Jharkhand Mines
Ltd. (supra), does not further the respondent's case. In that case, the
Supreme Court had clearly explained that whether the contract is discovered
as void subsequently or become void after it has entered into, the party who
has received any benefit would be bound to restore such advantage or
compensation. It is only in cases where both the parties knew at the time
when the agreement was entered into that it was not lawful and, therefore,
void that Section 65 of the Contract Act would not apply. The said decision
would have no application in the facts of the present case. It is nobody's
case that both the parties were fully aware at the time of entering into the
Agreement that the same was void; no such claim has been made and no
such finding has been returned by the Arbitrator.