Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.24 seconds)
M/S R B Enterprises vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2025 cites

Fateh Chand vs Balkishan Das on 15 January, 1963

This imposes a duty upon the court to award compensation according to the settled principles. The phraseology of Section 74 was held to dispense with the proof of actual loss or damages but it did not justify the award of compensation when in consequence of the breach no legal injury at all has resulted. It was, thus, clearly held that a plaintiff has to prove a loss suffered by him in consequence of the breach of contract committed by the defendant. This legal position laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is good law till date and, thus, any judgment of the Supreme Court of a Bench constituted of lesser number of Judges would, thus, have to be read in the context of the seminal pronouncement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 574 - J C Shah - Full Document

Maula Bux vs Union Of India on 19 August, 1969

In Maula Bux V. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 554, the forfeiture of security was upheld by the High Court, the amount forfeited being held as not unreasonable under Section 74 of the Contract Act. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court accepting the plea that the loss suffered by the respondent therein was capable of being measured and they could not seek protection under the garb of Section 74 of the Contract Act. Since the respondent had led no evidence that it had suffered loss, it was held that the amount could not be forfeited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 430 - J C Shah - Full Document

M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015

In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. Offshore Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4146, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates (supra) had observed that unless loss is pleaded and proved, where it capable of being proved, it cannot be recovered. There cannot be any windfall in favour of the respondent to recover Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 564 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. ... on 13 November, 2021

Counsel for the Respondent had strenuously urged that in the present case, it was impossible to calculate the actual loss incurred on account of non-supply of 2000 MT Rice which was meant for consumption of the army personnel and in this context, heavy reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Ministry of Defence (supra), where in turn reliance was placed by the Court on the judgment in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra). In my view, the judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, on a factual note, the contract was for supply of parachutes to the army and the Court held that it was impossible to calculate the loss that was caused to the army on account of non-supply of parachutes and in this backdrop held that the clauses pertaining to liquidated damages were enforceable in accordance with Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. In contrast with the said facts, in the present case, it is not the case of the Respondent that the nature of contract was such that losses could not be easily calculated and therefore, they had no alternative but to rely on the clause for liquidated damages. It is also not their case that efforts Digitally signed by VINEETA GOYAL VINEETA Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 24 - N V Ramana - Full Document
1   2 3 Next