Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gulabchand Paramchand vs Fulbai Harichand on 23 March, 1909
The decision in Gulabchand v. Fulbai therefore cannot help the appellants in contending that Section 65 applies to this case. I say it cannot help the appellants because to me the facts of this case seem to be of the clearest character in enabling me to attribute the lowest kind of moral turpitude to the plaintiff when he entered into the agreement.
Musst. Brij Indar Kuar vs Thakur Jai Indar Bahadur Singh on 9 May, 1932
27. The only other case which Mr. Desai referred to, namely, the decision in Harnath Kuar v. Iridar Bahadur Singh (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 69 has no bearing on the present point, because I have not disputed the proposition that Section 65 may, in conceivable cases, apply to agreements which are ab initio void. It is not an authority for the proposition that agreements which were not only known to be void but were initially bad and fraudulent as against others and intended to defeat the administration of justice the fraud being necessarily known to both the parties to the agreement would be covered by Section 65.
Section 24 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dayabhai Tribhovandas vs Lakhmichand Panachand on 19 February, 1885
The learned Judge accordingly proceeds to decide the appeal on a ground which particular ground, as I have understood the argument, has not been, urged in this appeal. But the observations make it clear that although Mr. Justice Batchelor did discuss Section 65 and was perhaps of the opinion that it would apply to an agreement ab initio void, in view of the decision in Dayabhai v. Lakhmichand, as well as apart from it, he was not prepared to base the decision of the case itself on that ground. The decision must therefore be read as a decision based on the only alternative ground on which it is-expressly stated to have been based.
Ledu, Coachman vs Hira Lal Bose on 28 April, 1915
With respect I agree with the observations in Ledu Coachman v. Hiralal Bose (1915) I.L.R. 43 Cal. 115 as to the effect of countenancing a claim to restitution of an advantage gained under an immoral agreement.
The Legal Practitioners Act, 1879
Section 2 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
P.R. Srinivasa Aiyar vs A. Sesha Iyer And Anr. on 14 March, 1917
31. I may note in passing that although no other decisions have been referred to on Section 65 at the bar, even in cases apparently, assisting Mr. Desai's contention, for instance the decision in Srinivasa v. Sesha (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 197 Section 65 has been held not to apply to agreements which are not discovered to be void. My conclusion, therefore, is that the present agreement being, as I have tried to indicate, of a fraudulent nature, known to be illegal involving moral turpitude on the part of the plaintiff and, as stated by the learned Judge being an agreement amounting to nothing more than creation of false evidence mentioning false facts about plaintiff No. 1's adoption and for compounding a non-compound-able case, Section 65 would not apply to such an agreement.