Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)
Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd vs Union Of India on 31 August, 1961 cites

Union Of India vs Chaman Lal Loona on 30 April, 1957

One of the learned Judges, who was a party to that decision, did not understand- the decision to lay down that whatever might have been the original purpose of the contract the statutory situs of the goods in respect of which the said contract was entered into would have the effect of making it a purpose of that Dominion in which the said goods were situated on the appointed day; for, in the present case, he held that, though the goods were in Pakistan on the appointed day, the contract was not for the purposes which were exclusively for the purposes of the Dominion of Pakistan. Though this question did not directly fall to be decided in Union of India v. Chaman Lal Loona (1), some observations made. by this Court in a different context may usefully be referred to. There, though the fodder was supplied to the Military Farms at Lahore, in the Joint Defence Council had powers of control over it and to Bend it to whichever place they wanted it to be sent. On that basis it was contended that the purpose of the contract was not for the purpose exclusively for the Dominion of Pakistan. This Court in rejecting the contention observed thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 21 - S K Das - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Loke Nath Saha on 1 December, 1950

The learned judge has also expressly approved of the decision in Krishna Ranjan Ba8u's case (2) and disapproved the contrary view expressed in Union of India v. Loke, Nath Saha (3). In the case of Chaman Lal Loona (4) this Court was dealing with a contract entered into on behalf of the GovernorGeneral in Council for the supply of fodder to the Manager, Military Farms, Lahore Cantonment, which was in Pakistan on August 15, 1947. The trial Court bad found that the contract was not enforceable against the Union of India, but this conclusion was reversed by the High Court on the ground that the fodder constituted military stores under the exclusive control of the joint Defence Council on the appointed day, and that it was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India. This Court held that even if it be assumed that the High Court was right in holding that the fodder was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India, the contract must nevertheless be held to be one exclusively for the purposes of Pakistan and the Union of India could not made liable thereunder. This conclusion was based on the fact that the purpose of a contract is not to be confused with the ultimate disposal of the goods supplied thereunder, since such disposal can in no way determine or modify the contract. It would thus be seen that in considering the nature of the contract in the present appeal either of the two artificial tests approved by this Court must be applied. Does the application of either of the said tests justify the answer given by the Appeal Court ?
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Krishna Ranjan Basu Ray vs Union Of India (Uoi) Representing ... on 12 July, 1954

The learned judge has also expressly approved of the decision in Krishna Ranjan Ba8u's case (2) and disapproved the contrary view expressed in Union of India v. Loke, Nath Saha (3). In the case of Chaman Lal Loona (4) this Court was dealing with a contract entered into on behalf of the GovernorGeneral in Council for the supply of fodder to the Manager, Military Farms, Lahore Cantonment, which was in Pakistan on August 15, 1947. The trial Court bad found that the contract was not enforceable against the Union of India, but this conclusion was reversed by the High Court on the ground that the fodder constituted military stores under the exclusive control of the joint Defence Council on the appointed day, and that it was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India. This Court held that even if it be assumed that the High Court was right in holding that the fodder was liable to be transferred to anywhere in India, the contract must nevertheless be held to be one exclusively for the purposes of Pakistan and the Union of India could not made liable thereunder. This conclusion was based on the fact that the purpose of a contract is not to be confused with the ultimate disposal of the goods supplied thereunder, since such disposal can in no way determine or modify the contract. It would thus be seen that in considering the nature of the contract in the present appeal either of the two artificial tests approved by this Court must be applied. Does the application of either of the said tests justify the answer given by the Appeal Court ?
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1