Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.49 seconds)Jaffer Meher Ali vs Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. on 8 May, 1906
8. The first question that arises for decision is as to whether the consideration or object of the agreement arrived at between the parties was fraudulent. The consideration of the agreement was that the respondent firm will not compete with the appellant firm and it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that an agreement between prospective bidders at an auction sale not to compete with one another known in common parlance as a 'knock out agreement' is neither fraudulent nor opposed to public policy. What has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the object of the agreement was to deceive the Forest Department inasmuch as there was to be a pretence or show of competition. The word 'object' as used in the aforesaid section means purpose or design vide Jafier Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co., 33 Cal 702 confirmed on appeal in Jafier Meher AH v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co., ILR 34 Cal 289.
Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya And Others on 26 March, 1959
In the case of Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, AIR 1959 SC 781 the doctrine of public policy has been summarized as below:
Bhagwant Genuji Girme vs Gangabisan Ramgopal on 20 March, 1940
In the case of Bhagwant Genuji v. Gangabishan Ramgopal, AIR 1940 Bom 369, a partnership was formed solely with a view to take toll contracts at a public auction and a question arose as to whether such a partnership was illegal as opposed to public policy and it was held that the principle of public policy cannot be made to apply in its result to a combination of persons who agreed not to bid against one another at a public sale held for farming out public revenue. The combination is not rendered illegal merely because the Government is a party to the sale or that the proceeds of the sale would be credited to public revenues or that it might result in possible loss to Government. Nor can the combination to be regarded as other than innocent merely because it discouraged competition amongst the partners themselves.
Section 17 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mahommad Isack Alias Papa Saheb vs Doddapaneni Sreeramalu on 13 December, 1945
In the case of Mohammad Isack v. D. Sreeramalu, AIR 1946 Mad 289, the facts were that 'A' and 'B' made tenders to postal authorities to secure a licence to carry mails between certain places. There was an agreement between 'A' and 'B' by which 'A' was to withdraw his tender and in consideration of the withdrawal B agreed to pay A a certain monthly sum. 'A' withdrew his tender and the licence was given to 'B'. In a suit by 'A' to recover the sum on the basis of the agreement it was held that the agreement for the withdrawal of the tender which was in the nature of an offer or bid was like an agreement between intending bidders that one should keep off from bidding and was not unlawful or opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. It was further held that it was not possible to treat the obtaining of a licence from Government as in the nature of the trade or calling and the agreement was not invalid under Section 27 of the Contract Act.
Abdula Saheb vs Guruvappa And Co. on 22 November, 1943
The case of 6 Cal LJ in was not considered to have been correctly decided and the case of (1821) 23 RR 626 (supra) was considered to be a case having special facts and as such not laying down a principle of general application in AIR 1933 Oudh 124 (supra) relied upon on behalf of the appellant. It was held in that case that an agreement between two persons not to bid against each other at an auction sale is perfectly lawful and cannot be considered to be opposed to public policy.
1