Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Mahabir Prashad Rungta vs Durga Datt on 31 January, 1961
47. However, it must be made clear that with regard to this amount of damages of Rs. 79,250/-, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad v. Durga Datta, AIR 1961 SC 990 interest cannot be granted up to the date of the suit as it is well settled.
The Interest Act, 1978
Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 November, 1953
7. The law in the context came up for consideration and consequent declaration by the Supreme Court in Satyabrata v. Mugneeram, AIR 1954 SC 44. It is observed that the word "impossible" has not been used in the sense of physical or literal impossibility. The performance of an act may not be literally impossible, but it may become impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the promisor find it impossible to do the act which he promised to do. It is further observed that the essential idea upon which the doctrine of frustration is based is that of impossibility of performance of the contract; in fact impossibility and frustration are often used as interchangeable expressions. The doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reasons of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done and hence comes within the purview of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.
Section 32 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sushila Devi And Anr vs Hari Singh And Ors on 5 May, 1971
9. The Supreme Court in Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1756 has further declared that the supervening events should be such as capable enough to take away the basis of the contract and they should be of such a character having the capacity of striking at the root of the contract itself.
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1