Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)Section 56 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Behari Lall Shaha vs Jagodish Chunder Shaha on 30 May, 1904
20. The Patna decision (AIR 1943 Pat 374 (A)) on which the learned lower 'Court relied is distinguishable. There the agreement by an Excise licensee to transfer his license to another person without securing the permission of the Collector, was held to be void 'ab initio'; but there was no finding to the effect that while entering into the agreement the parties stipulated that permission would be sought for in due course or else that they applied for such permission and that the Collector by his conduct led them to believe that permission would be given in due course. Similarly, in the other cases under the Excise Acts or Opium. Act or Bombay Salt Act cited before us: -- 'Thithi Pakurudasu v. Bheemudu', 26 Mad 430 (Q), -- 'Debi Prasad v. Rup Ram', 10 All 577 (R), -- 'Raghunath Lalman v. Nathu Hirji', 19 Bom 626 (S), -- 'Ismailji Yusufali v. Raghunath', 33 Bom 636 (T)' and -- 'Behari Lall Shaha v. Jagodish Chunder', 31 Cal 798 (U), the aforesaid finding of fact was clearly absent.
The Bombay Abkari Act, 1878
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Velu Padayachi vs Sivasooriam Pillai on 16 December, 1949
In another Full Bench case of the same High Court, -- 'Velu Padayachi v. Sivasooriam Pillai', AIR 1950 Mad 444 (E) the same principle of law was reaffirmed, and Horwill J., delivering the opinion of the Full Bench observed as follows referring to the dictum of Reilly J. in AIR 1923 Mad 1197 (C) :