Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
In the
conspectus of the aforesaid principles, it was observed in
Michigan Rubber v. State of Karnataka 8 SCC 216 as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nabha Power Ltd. (Npl) vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. ... on 5 October, 2017
40. We may also refer to the judgment of this Court in
Nabha Power Limited (NPL) v. Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Anr. (2018) 11 SCC
508, authored by one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.). The
legal principles for interpretation of commercial contracts
have been discussed.
Antitrust - Section 26(6) Disclaimer: ... vs M/S Aci Worldwide Solutions Private ... on 13 January, 2015
19......In Trollope & Colls Ltd. v. North West Metropolitan
Regional Hospital Board (1973) 1 WLR 601 (HL) Lord
Pearson, with whom Lord Guest and Lord Diplock agreed,
said:
Satya Jain(D) & Ors vs Anis Ahmed Rushdie(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 3 December, 2012
41. Nabha Power Limited (NPL)4 also took note of the earlier
judgment of this Court in Satya Jain v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie
(2013) 8 SCC 131, which discussed the principle of business
15
efficacy as proposed by Bowen, L.J. in the Moorcock (1889)
LR 14 PD 64 (CA). It has been elucidated that this test
requires that terms can be implied only if it is necessary to
give business efficacy to the contract to avoid failure of the
contract and only the bare minimum of implication is to be
there to achieve this goal. Thus, if the contract makes
business sense without the implication of terms, the courts
will not imply the same.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Lata Construction & Ors vs Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And ... on 12 August, 1999
15. Though, there were several other factual narrations and
7
facts which are made in the writ petition, but primarily the
argument which has been extended by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner, was based upon the principles that the
impugned order dated 29th September 2021, since being a
'novation', of a pre-existing and a concluded contract, as it was
resulting into its substitution by a new contract and since both the
contracts; being in contradiction and inconsistent to one another,
the old contract dated 30th November 2020, could not have been
substituted by an executive direction dated 29th September 2021
thereby calling upon the petitioner to enter into a new contract
and hence he has made reference to a judgment as reported in
2000 (1) SCC 586, Lata Construction and others Vs. Dr.
Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another, particularly, he
has drawn the attention of this Court and relied upon para 9 and
10 of the said judgement, which are extracted hereunder:-
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Caretel Infotech Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 9 April, 2019
6. The burgeoning litigation in this field and the same
being carried to this Court in most matters was the cause we
set forth an epilogue in Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. Even if it amounts to
repetition, we believe that it needs to be emphasized in view
of the controversy arising in the present case to appreciate the
contours within which the factual matrix of the present case
has to be analysed and tested.