Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
M/S. Shanti Kunj Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs U.T. Administration, Chandigarh on 2 February, 2001
cites
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
39. The principles regarding construction of contracts were laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, AIR 1986 SC 1871. It was inter alia held that "the principle deducible from various precedents is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power". It was further observed that this principle "will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed orstandard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that
contract or from or rules may be".
Section 6 in Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
The Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952
Sukhpal Singh Kang And Ors., Etc. Etc. vs Chandigarh Administration And Anr. on 16 October, 1998
61. Counsel for the respondents had referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhpal Singh Kang and others v. Chandigarh Administration 1999(1) PLR 54 : 1999(1) RCR(Civil) 288 (P&H)(DB), to contend that the petitioners are bound to make the payment. We have examined the judgment. A perusal thereof shows that relief was declined to the petitioners who had not only constructed the buildings but had even leased them out at substantial rates of rent. However, in the case where the amenities had not been fully provided, directions as contained in paragraph 27 were given. It was observed as under :-