Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.24 seconds)
No.1 Issued A Notice Dated 13.07.2007 ... vs No.1 Issued A Reply Notice Dated ... on 26 March, 2021
cites
Section 34 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 70 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 43 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 16 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
Kuju Collieries Ltd vs Jharkhand Mines Ltd. & Ors on 12 August, 1974
In the
above-mentioned decision reported in 1974 (2) - S.C.C. - 533
= A.I.R. - 1974 - S.C. - 1892 (Kuju Collieries Limited vs.
Jarkhand Mines Limited), it was held that since the Plaintiff
therein was already in mining business and had the advantage
of consulting its lawyers and solicitors, and their lease deed was
prepared and drawn up by solicitors and there was no occasion
24
Com.AS.No.36/2015
for the Plaintiff to be under any kind of ignorance of law with
regard to the Mineral Concession Rules rendering the lease
illegal. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court appreciated the
reason given by the Trial Court for not giving the benefit of
Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act to the Plaintiff, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court clearly defined the scope of Section 65 of the
Indian Contract Act in the following words:-