Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.39 seconds)
M/S. Karamchand Thaper & Bros (C.S.)Ltd vs M/S. M. P. Power Trading Co. Ltd. & Ors on 11 October, 2012 cites

D.S. Constructions Limited vs Rites Limited And Anr. on 17 January, 2006

(b) D.S. Construction Ltd., Vs. RITES Ltd & Anr 127 (2006) Delhi Law Times 1 "10.......The offer or proposal had to be accepted in its entirety with the condition or not at all and, if the offer was not accepted in its entirety, then it would be a deemed refusal on the part of the plaintiff and, therefore, the defendant No.1 would not be entitled to forfeit the earnest money. There is no other clause which has been pointed out under which eh defendant No.1 could forfeit the earnest money in the circumstances obtaining tin this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 7 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Zodiac Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 May, 1985

(c) Zodiac Electricals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Union of India & Ors (1986) 3 SCC 522 "2....It is, therefore, obvious that though in the opening part of this letter dated August 13, 1979 the DGS&D appeared to accept the offer contained in the tender of the Appellants, they did not unconditionally accept this offer, because they insisted that the Appellants should deposit by September 15, 1979 a sum of Rs.75,000 as Page 42 of 102 Appeal No.46 of 2012 Security Deposit". The DGS&D thus added a condition which was contrary to the stipulation made in the offer of the Appellants. This letter dated August 13, 1979 could not possibly, therefore, be regarded as unconditional acceptance of the offer of the Appellants and in the circumstances it could not be possibly contended that a concluded contract had been arrived at between the parties by reason of this letter dated August 13, 1979. This letter dated August 13, 1979 was really in the nature of a counter offer made by the DGS&D to the Appellants. The question is whether this counter offer was accepted by the Appellants".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 25 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Shankarlal Narayandas vs The New Mofussil Co. Ltd. on 13 March, 1946

(d) Shankarlal Narayandas Mundade v. The New Mofussil Co. Ltd and Ors reported in AIR 1946 PC 97 "9. But apart from the objection that the point was taken too late, their Lordships, with all due respect for the Judges of the High Court, are satisfied that it is without substance. In their Lordship's opinion, the facts do not support the inference that the parties intended to be bound only when a formal agreement had been executed. On the contrary, their Lordships consider that there was ample evidence to prove that both parties intended to make, and believed that they had made, a binding oral agreement. Their desire and intention to put that agreement into formal shape does not affect its validity. It was contended by Counsel for the Respondent that the agreement was necessarily incomplete because it had been left to the solicitors to settle some of its terms and because (as counsel rightly submitted) a solicitor has no implied authority to make a contract on his client's behalf. Their Lordships are of opinion, however, that no question as to a solicitor's implied authority arises in this case. In their Lordship's view, it is a fair inference from the evidence that Sir Shapurji authorized Mr. Manekshaw to put before the plaintiff for his acceptance the "usual" terms. In Page 48 of 102 Appeal No.46 of 2012 the circumstances which have already been explained, this seems to their Lordships to have been a very natural and business like course for Sir Shapurji to take, and necessarily resulted, when the Appellant accepted the terms, in the formation of a binding contract".
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 48 - Full Document
1   2 Next