Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Bhagavathi Mudaliar vs N. Subramaniam on 25 August, 1967 cites

Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965

2. For an important reason, I am not now proceeding into the one question of fact decided by the Courts below, that time had to be construed as the essence of this contract on the facts, and further that it was the plaintiff, the intending vendee, who committed breach of the contract. Had the matter been open for my determination, some probabilities could no doubt be stressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner, for an opposite view. It is affect that the vendor later sold the properties shortly after the expiry of the period fixed, for a sum of Rs. 22,000 to a third party. But for an important reason, I am not now proceeding into this aspect at all. Actually, learned Counsel for the respondent argues, on the strength of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Pandurang v. Maruti , that it is not even open to me to interfere in revision with the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of the alleged advance of Rs. 500. The argument is that errors of fact cannot be canvassed in revision Under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and even errors of law cannot be so canvassed, unless such errors have effected the jurisdiction of the trial Court. In any event, these dicta will certainly inhibit me from any re-assessment of the evidence, on the question of who committed the breach and arrival of any different conclusion after such reassessment. We must therefore take it as established, that time was the essence of the contract in this case, and that the plaintiff did commit breach of the contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 200 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Naresh Chandra Guha vs Ram Chandra Samanta And Ors. on 10 July, 1951

5. There is a decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Naresh Chandra v. Ram Chandra , relied on by learned Counsel for respondent. This follows the idea expressed in the decision of the Judicial Committee, that earnest money has the two characteristics which I have already referred to. Such earnest money, in the absence of an express or implied contract to the contrary is liable to be forfeited by the vendor, when the contract goes off for default of the purchaser.. Here again, the nature of the money initially paid is assumed, and is the foundations for the argument. Needless to say, it is of very little help in the present context.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Chunnilal Onkarmal Ltd. And Anr. vs Mohanlal Balkrishna Agarwal And Anr. on 26 November, 1962

6. A very helpful precedent for our discussion is Chunnilal v. Mohanlal . Here the learned Judge (Krishnan, J.) was concerned with the test to be applied with reference to the terms of Section 74 of the Contract Act, and he pointed out that the nomenclature in the document may not be decisive. But what should be ascertainable with reasonable precision, on the evidence, is the understanding at the time of the agreement, between the parties that the specific amount paid was a guarantee for the performance of the contract, and therefore liable to be retained by the person to whom it is paid, on breach of contract by the other party. The learned Judge further observed that when the amount was paid at the time of the agreement itself this fart may be of some help to assume that the amount could possess the character of earnest money.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1