Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.93 seconds)Section 32 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 November, 1953
2. The law to be considered is the law of frustration of contract as applicable to this country. The matter appears to be concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrate Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. . where under apparently similar circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the plea of frustration of the contract, but, as the said case has been sought to be distinguished on facts and a seemingly new question has also been raised for our consideration and as it his been further argued that this Court, though bound by the Supreme Court's statement or enunciation of the principle, is not bound by any particular application of that principle, made by it in any particular case, and may make a different application of that principle even to the similar facts before it and reach a different conclusion, it is necessary to examine the whole position and record our views on the same in some detail.
Mugneeram Bangore And Co. vs Satyabrata Ghosh And Anr. on 6 September, 1950
20. Having thus indicated the law and the mode of its application, let us see how the parties before us stand in respect of their rights in dispute. To do so, it is necessary first to indicate the background against which that consideration should be made. As put by the Supreme Court in Satyabrata's case, (supra) (vide p. 201 (of SCA): (p. 49 of AIR), "the most material thing" in that connection "is that there is absolutely no time-limit within which the roads are to be made" and, indeed, as it is clear from the evidence on record as it was in Satyabrata's case too, "there was not even an understanding between the parties on this point." The other
"important thing that requires notice in the above connection is that the war was already on when the parties entered into the contract. Requisition orders for taking temporary possession of lands for war purposes were normal events during this period, Apart from requisition orders, there were other difficulties in doing construction work at that time, because of the scarcity of materials and the various restrictions which the Government had imposed in respect of them. That there were certain risks and difficulties involved in carrying on operations like these could not but be in the contemplation of the parties at the time when they entered into the contract and that is probably the reason why no definite time-limit was mentioned in the contract within which the roads etc. are to be completed. This was left entirely to the convenience of the Company and, as the matter of fact, the purchaser did not feel concerned about it."
1