Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs M/S. B. K. Mondal And Sons on 5 December, 1961
And, again in State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal and Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779 the Supreme Court said :
Mohamed Ebrahim Molla vs Commissioners For The Port Of ... on 9 August, 1926
In Mohamed Ebrahim Molla v. Commissioners for the Port of Chittagong, ILR 54 Cal 189 : (AIR 1927 Cal 465), the question was considered whether on the basis of an executed consideration an action would lie by the Port of Chittagong, the plaintiff in that case. The contract in question did not comply with Section 29 of the Chittagong Port Act, 1914. It was, therefore, contended, by the defendant that the contract is unenforceable, though it was fully executed by the plaintiff, the Chittagong Port. After an examination of some of the English decisions, the Court observed :
The Municipal Council, Tiruvarur, ... vs P.R. Kannuswami Pillai And Anr. on 25 November, 1929
In Municipal Council, Tiruvarur v. Kannuswami Pillai, AIR 1930 Mad 600. reliance was placed on ILR 30 Mad 290, 16 Ind Cas 890 (Mad) and ILR 54 Cal 189 : (AIR 1927 Cal 465) already noticed by us, and it was observed that even if the corporation had fully executed a contract, a suit by the corporation would not lie and in Madura Municipality v. Alagirisami Naidu, AIR 1939 Mad 957, with reference to Section 68 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 5 of 1920, it is said that that section draws no distinction between executed and executory contracts and the word 'contracts' used in that section must be held to cover both executed and executory contracts.
Dr. H. S. Rikhy And Others vs The New Delhi Municipal Committee on 13 September, 1961
18. Reliance was then placed on two passages from the Judgment of His Lordship the Chief Justice in Dr. H. S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1963 SC 554, and it was suggested that those passages would support the contention of the appellants that even suits instituted by the Government after having fully performed their part of the agreement are not maintainable because there has been no compliance with Section 175 (3). It has to be noticed that the Supreme Court decision arose out of an application moved against the Municipality for fixation of fair rent and no question arose before the Supreme Court about an action by the Municipality on an executed consideration. The passages relied on have to be understood in the context in which they appear and the question that arose for decision. The first of these passages is in these terms: