Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)M.D., Army Welfare Housing ... vs Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd on 8 October, 2003
13. The other decision cited by the petitioner in the
case of Md. Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal
Services (P) Ltd., reported in (2004) 9 SCC 619, also relates to
Section 56 of the Contract Act and the frustration of contract
arising out of impossibility of fulfilling contractual obligation. In
the said case, the Apex Court has clearly held as follows:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 67 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Jai Durga Finvest Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 5 January, 2004
In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jai
Durga Finvest (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, reported in (2004) 3
SCC 381. However, this Court after having gone through the
facts of the case holds that there was no hindrance, as alleged by
the petitioner. In fact, the Railways had specifically asked the
petitioner to go-ahead with the construction of the Railway line
as had been allotted to him and, therefore, by no stretch of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13020 of 2011 dt.23-03-2017
8/16
imagination, it could be said that the respondent had rendered
impossible or frustrated the contract on any count whatsoever.
As such, the aforementioned judgment has no application to the
facts of the present case.
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
1