Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Mt. Asa Devi vs Mt. Champa Devi And Ors. on 11 March, 1953 cites

Sheo Prasad And Anr. vs Sanaullah And Anr. on 5 April, 1929

18. On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on the decision of -- 'Sheo Prasad v. Sanaullah', AIR 1929 All 558 (G), where it was held that the term "penalty" cannot be properly applied where all that is agreed between the parties is that they shall revert to the situation existing immediately prior to the new agreement, even though that may involve liability on the part of one of them for a sum greater than if he had carried out the agreement. In that case one of the parties in effect, said this:
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajagopala Padayachi vs Varadaraja Padayachi on 28 July, 1924

19. Reliance was next placed on the decision of -- 'Rajagopala Padayachi v. Varadaraja Padayachi', AIR 1925 Mad 84 (H). In that case on a partition among thre6 Hindu brothers, it was agreed that one of them should, instead of being given any land, be entitled to receive from each of the others an annuity and on default of payment of such annuity, should be entitled to resume that portion of his share which had gone to the defaulter. It was held that this clause could not be described as a penalty, nor could it be regarded as a forfeiture clause. It was pointed out that in order to find a penalty clause, it is necessary to first discover whether there were in effect two contracts in one, namely, one a primary contract, and the other in the nature of a subsidiary contract; and when on the failure of the primary contract, the subsidiary contract becomes enforceable, then in such cases Courts are called upon to determine whether or not the subsidiary contract is a contract in the nature of enforcing a penalty, in the case before us, there was really no subsidiary contract enforcing a penalty.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1