Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)Article 299 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.P. Ramakrishna Pattar vs K.P. Narayana Pattar And Anr. on 28 October, 1914
In Ramakrishna Pattar v. Narayana Pattar, AIR 1915 Mad 584, a declaration was sought that a
personal contract subsisted; it related to some tax. Accepting that such declaration of contractual
rights could not be claimed under the then Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, as such
declarations could not be held to relate to any person's legal character, it was held:
Mahabir Jute Mills vs Firm Kedar Nath Ram Bharose on 21 July, 1959
These views were affirmed and applied by the Allahabad High Court, in Mahabir Jute Mills v.
Firm Kedar Nath Ram Bharose, AIR 1960 All 254, and also by the Bombay High Court, in
Shanta Shamsher Jung Bahadur v. Kamani Brothers Private Ltd., AIR 1959 Bom 201.
Major General Shanta Shamsher Jung ... vs Kamani Brothers Private Ltd. And Ors on 6 January, 1958
These views were affirmed and applied by the Allahabad High Court, in Mahabir Jute Mills v.
Firm Kedar Nath Ram Bharose, AIR 1960 All 254, and also by the Bombay High Court, in
Shanta Shamsher Jung Bahadur v. Kamani Brothers Private Ltd., AIR 1959 Bom 201.
Bank Of India & Anr vs K.Mohandas & Ors on 27 March, 2009
CS (OS) 2873/1988 Page 12
A cardinal principle of interpretation of contract is that every document should be read as a
whole, having regard to the import of the words used, and not upon what the parties say later. In
other words, the Court's inquiry is limited to seeing the express terms of the bargain, and not the
subsequent conduct, which may not be reflective of what they had agreed upon. This was
underlined in a recent decision, Bank of India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313 by the
Supreme Court, in the following manner: