Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Waman Shriniwas Kini vs Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co on 16 February, 1959
23. Waiver could also be deduced from acquiescence, was considered in
Waman Shriniwas Kini vs. Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co., 1959 Supp (2) SCR
21, observing as follows:
M. Lachia Setty & Sons Ltd. Etc. Etc vs The Coffee Board, Bangalore on 9 October, 1980
7. The appellant had taken all reasonable steps for mitigation of damages
as available to it, by exploring alternate use of its bottling plant by other
bottlers, including sale of the plant, relying on the Explanation to Section 73 of
the Act. The appellate court, despite noticing the efforts made by the appellant,
6
erred in applying the test for success of the endeavor, instead of the endeavor
made. The appellant was not expected to take such steps involving
unreasonable expenses, risk or injury to itself. The respondents were required
to affirmatively demonstrate that the appellant had acted unreasonably, despite
availability of opportunity, in its duty to mitigate the loss. Reliance was placed
on M. Lachia Shetty & Sons Ltd. vs. Coffee Board, Bangalore, (1980) 4
SCC 636. Even if the respondent were to succeed on this aspect, the only
consequence would be in the matter for computation of damages only, and not
its denial completely.
P. Dasa Muni Reddy vs P. Appa Rao on 10 September, 1974
The plea that it was
16
done under compulsion, and not voluntarily, is devoid of any material,
substance and evidence. It is unacceptable and merits no consideration.
Alternatively, if it was an assignment under Clause 5 of the agreement, there
had been no termination of the contract by the respondent. Waiver by conduct
was considered in P. Dasa Muni Reddy vs. P. Appa Rao, (1974) 2 SCC 725,
observing as follows:
Section 63 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
The claim for damages was raised belatedly only thereafter by
filing the suit in 1990, and after the appellant had shut down the plant because
of its own inability to run the business. There had been no breach by the
respondent. The original agreement underwent a novation sub silentio, in the
facts of the case, under Sections 8 and 62 of the Act, even if it had not been
formally reduced to writing. Reliance was placed on McDermott
International Inc vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 181.
Alternately, if the supply of concentrates was accepted by the appellant from
M/s. VEC in view of clause 5 of the bottler’s agreement, there had not been any
termination of the contract by the respondent. The appellant had further
acquiesced to the new arrangement for supply of concentrates, and by its
conduct had waived the claimed legal rights under the bottler’s agreement.
1