Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & Sons Etc on 12 December, 1974
We may also note that the object of the agreement was not to carry out some- thing prohibited by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or law widely applicable so as to be hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Firm Pratapchand v. Firm-Kotrike AIR 1975 SC 1223.
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Pattipati Ramalingaiah And Anr. vs Nagulagunta Subbarami Reddi on 6 April, 1950
In Ramalingiah v. Subbarami Reddi. (supra) Panchapagesa Sastri J. had no consider the validity of a knock out agreement by which certain villagers had agreed not to bid against each other, but to put up one person as the sole bidder. It was contended that such an agreement not to bid against each other is not illegal under the common law nor an auction would get invalidated because of such an agreement and in upholding the validity of such an agreement, the absence of a statute here as in England to remedy the evil of a knock out combination was noticed and it was held that such an agreerrent cannot be invalidated on the ground of public policy. Considered in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that at best the agreement in this case would amount to a mere withdrawal of the application made by the defendant for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Panruti-Arasur and that such an agreement is not opposed to public policy.
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
The defendant, apart from relying upon Ex. B-10, has not made available any other material to show the income from the route in question. Undoubtedly, during the period in question, the defendant had operated on the route and the defendant should have materials in his possession which would throw light with reference to the income. But he had not made available to Court the best evidence in his possession and in the absence of such evidence, the defendant cannot be permitted to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof (vide Gopal Krishnaji. Mohd. Haji Latif), (supra). We are inclined to accept the admission of D.W. 1, as reflecting a correct estimate of the net income from the route in question which even according to him, would be about Rs. 100 per day. On this basis, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 100 every day for the total period of 15 months. In other words, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 45,000 but he had restricted the claim to Rs. 40,000 only. We, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rupees 40,000 from the defendant as damages.
T. Govindaraja Mudaliar Etc. Etc vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Others on 9 January, 1973
8. Earlier, it has been noticed how the plaintiff and Ors. appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in App. Nos. 523, 655 and 670 of 1972 against the grant of a permit in favour of the defendant in respect of the route Panruti-Arasur, contrary to the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the defendant had agreed to withdraw his application. Ex. A-7 is the copy of the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. After elaborately considering the circumstances under which the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was entered into, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in para 26 of its judgment, found that the Regional Transport Authority was not right in having permitted the defendant to withdraw his letter of withdrawal of the application and in having proceeded to consider the application of the defendant and had also further stated that the application of the defendant must be considered to have been withdrawn. In other words, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had proceeded to uphold the validity of the agreement as well as its legal effect and this judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had been upheld by this Court in C.R.P. 2520 of 1972 on 18-8-1973, as seen from Ex. A-8. Though it may appear from Ex. A-8, that the validity of the agreement had not been specifically adverted to yet the binding effect of the adjudication therein would not be dependent upon whether this argument was put forth or not. But if the point with reference to which the argument was raised before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was decided, it does not matter whether it was expressly considered or a decision was given thereon or not as that will not take away the binding effect of the decision of this Court confirming that of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (vide T. G. Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu), (supra). We are, therefore, of the view that even by the principles of res judicata, the defendant is preduced from contesting either the validity or the legal effect of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant with reference to the withdrawal of the application of the defendant for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Panruti-Arasur.
Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya And Others on 26 March, 1959
289, Ramalingiah v. Subbarami Raddi , Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas and Firm Pratapchand v. Firm Kotrike . The prior decision in C.R.P. 2520 of 1972, inter partes upholding that of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal wherein it had been held that the defendant could not be permitted to withdraw his earlier letter of withdrawal, was also relied upon as precluding the defendant from raising any plea in this regard.
1